Arlo:
If there is some "one true MOQ", and this is tied to Pirsig's "authority", then the interpretive argument (this is what Pirsig "meant") becomes of paramount importance. It is no longer an evolutionary dialogue of ideas, but a competition to claim authoritative legitimacy. Ron: Well stated. A very important point.If we are to use what we have learned we would ask ourselves what difference it would make if one or the other were true. Using this method would illustrate the consequences of each and in MoQ fashion make the "Quality" distinction. Which has more value. This is why I say this is a fine exercise of MoQ's "theory". Arlo: And I think this has been why Ron has been endlessly frustrated trying to move his dialogue with Bo away from the interpretive domain and into the competing "betterness" of differing ideas. Ron: Exactly. Where it should be. An arguement based on interpretive authority gets us nowhere. Mainly it should'nt matter what Bob said. What should matter is which idea has more value? Thanx Arlo Getting back to the "a/the" distinction, I think conventionally we've become accustomed to using "THE metaphysics of Quality" to specifically refer to Pirsig's ideas (Pirsig himself uses this convention in his writing). And as Matt (if I understood him correctly) wrote, this is, of course, or primary interest to those who respect his ideas. But when we use "THE metaphysics of Quality" in this way, does it trap the dialogue in the interpretative domain by implying "there can be only one"? In other words, if "THE metaphysics of Quality" = Pirsig's ideas, then a "papal bull" would seem to impair discussion, and capturing the interpretative ground would seem to be the only way to attain legitimacy. For me, again as one of those evil "interlictials", I frame this as Pirsig's ideas = "A metaphysics of Quality" (the foundation for which we are all here, to be sure), and Bo's ideas = "A metaphysics of Quality" that is a critical revision of Pirsig's ideas. Bo might say "A metaphysics of Quality that holds the intellectual level to SOM is better than A metaphysics of Quality that considers SOM to be one on many intellectual patterns", instead of "THE metaphysics of Quality holds the intellectual level to SOM". And in this light there can be no "papal bulls", because the authority Pirsig writes from informs specifically HIS metaphysics of Quality, not THE metaphysics of Quality. Is this wrong? Do others see this instead as a sort of competition to claim representing "the one true MOQ"? Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
