Hello everyone On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 7:50 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote: > [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.
Hi Arlo Yes you have a point. Still, if other authors subscribe to pragmatism they should certainly give James his due credit and build on his work, rather than misinterpreting it into something it is not. >Arlo: > 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: Yes there is that. But in all intellectual honesty, any Quality-ism author needs to make it clear that their work is not related to the Metaphysics of Quality, or if it is, how it is related. They need to name their theory something else, like Ham has done. Nothing wrong with that. But there are (and have been) many contributors here who aren't intellectually honest. They insist there is A Metaphysics of Quality and therefore their interpretation is just as valid as RMP's and in some cases even more valid! They tend to ridicule those of us who attempt to adhere as closely as possible to the MOQ as described in LILA. They ignore some quotes, misinterpret others, and generally make such a mess of things it is impossible to even sort out what they're saying. > > [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. Dan: Yes, I see what you mean. Myself, I pass it off as an idiosyncrasy of the author. I make the same statement, time and time again. I don't know why Mr Pirsig does so. I never asked. I do so on account of viewing the MOQ as kind of a "living" document. I don't mean it is alive in the same sense my cat is alive, but rather it is both a static and Dynamic document, capable of evolving towards something better. It speaks to me. >Arlo: > 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. Dan: Exactly my point. >Arlo: > 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: I appreciate that. Still, I believe there is a framework around which the Metaphysics of Quality is constructed, and speaking from within that framework is a better way for me to understand just what it is I am speaking of. > > [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: I have no disagreement with this. I think the same thing is developing now with the MOQ, what with Ant's work and dmb's endeavors and others like David Granger who have used RMP's work as a springboard to enhancing their own views. > > [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. Dan: Fair enough. But he did name it the Metaphysics of Quality, presumably to distinguish his theory from others. I guess I don't see the problem. >Arlo: > 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. Dan: I suppose we are free to use any term we choose, but I prefer going along with the author, if nothing more than for the sake of clarity. Thank you, Dan 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
