[Dan] What other competing authors have stated that Quality is the primary empirical reality? I don't know of any. Isn't that why Robert Pirsig's work stands out as original?
[Arlo] I guess I am not only looking at the historical dialogue here, Dan, but I'm anticipating future voices. What would we make it if we said "pragmatism" always was and always will be nothing but what James' said, and any other author that has spoken or will speak can't claim to be in the school of pragmatism. I do, yes, think Pirsig's ideas are quite original, revolutionary even. But even if we accept him as the foundational, or seminal, author in the school, there will certainly be other voices; some agreeing, some disagreeing, some refining, some offering thoughts they think are better. But please note I am not arguing against one or the other here, I think (as I've said many times) that movement towards clarity in what Pirsig's ideas were (the one) will naturally produce the voices of agreement and disagreement from which philosophical ideas evolve (the many). [Dan] I did a quick Google search and all I found on the Metaphysics of Quality is work related to RMP's. As far as I know, it is his term alone. Can you point to another MOQ that I am unaware of? [Arlo] And in this sense, for you, "The MOQ" is simply just and only what Pirsig said. When someone says, "the MOQ says..." you interpret this as "Pirsig says", and I don't have a problem with this. But, ideas evolve, and they will, and there will come a day when there are several authors labeled as "Quality-ists" in the same way there are many authors working within the foundation of pragmatism. My point is that BOTH the Pirsig scholars and scholars of Quality-ism are valuable. And my point is that the confusion here lies in the fact that BOTH Pirsig scholars and scholars of Quality-ism are using the term "Metaphysics of Quality" to describe their field. [Dan] This seems a bit wishy-washy to me. But whatever floats your boat.. [Arlo] My point, Dan, is that "The MOQ" says nothing. It doesn't speak. Pirsig speaks. You speak. I speak. You wouldn't say "Semiosis says that...", no, you'd say "Peirce says" or "Eco says", unless you were making a very broad statement of similarity across many authors. If you think pointing out who is speaking is "wishy washy", I'm not sure what to say, except that clarity is never wishy washy. The larger problem here is that when someone says "The MOQ says" it sounds like a de-humanized authority, the very same thing Pirsig strove to avoid by presenting his ideas as a narrative rather than decontextualized voice. Its always just one person talking from one point in time, or something like this (I forget the exact quote). This is why I drop "the MOQ says" entirely. I say "Pirsig says", and then I can say easily where what "I say" is in agreement of disagreement. I am not "interpreting the MOQ", I am listening and responding to Pirsig's voice with my own. [Dan] Of course not. But those other voices are speaking of different theories, not the Metaphysics of Quality as outlined by Robert Pirsig. [Arlo] Well, disagreements arise and to be sure there are different voices within a field, such as pragmatism, but surely you can see the foundational similarity which unites these voices? Like I said, I think the work of the Peirce scholar (e.g.) is valuable and necessary to bring clarity to just what it was that Peirce has said. But it is also valuable in looking at the entire historical dialogue, and seeing how others responded to Peirce, what they said, and what in the first place Peirce himself was responding to, and this larger look at the ideas of "pragmatism" (e.g.) reveals the ground where ideas evolve. [Dan] That is why it is not a metaphysics of quality... it is the Metaphysics of Quality. At least, in my opinion. [Arlo] Never one to miss an opportunity to keep beating a dead horse, I'd make the argument that the phrase "metaphysics of quality" is redundant (as Pirsig himself points to in LILA), and that saying "Pirsig's metaphysics" is good enough. And, I'd argue that since Pirsig refers to, broadly, the body of western metaphysics he is arguing against as "S/O metaphysics", I'd say we should consider using the term "D/S metaphysics" to talk, again broadly, about ideas that appear within this view. 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
