[Dan]
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 absolutely agree. This is precisely what I had been saying in the
"interpretative legitimacy" thread.
[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.
[Arlo]
Well this is again the very terminology problem I am pointing
towards. Sure, every author can coin a name for their metaphysics
(although I am not sure why this would be important), but we need a
term to describe the "school" of ideas that build from a similiar foundation.
Its apparent you do not think "Metaphysics of Quality" should be the
label applied to the school, but should remain the label applied only
to Pirsig's particular ideas. My point is that others are using this
term to refer to the broad sum of ideas that include but also derive
from Pirsig's ideas. This is why the term means "one" to you and
others, but "many" for some on the list.
[Dan]
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!
[Arlo]
Well, I absolutely agree. Again, this what my exact point in the
"interpretative legitimacy" thread.
[Dan]
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]
Well this is the heart of the matter, Dan, but herein lies the
problem. How can "The Metaphysics of Quality" evolve towards
something better the label refers to "what Pirsig said". What he said
can't evolve, what he said is what he said.
Evolution occurs in the "school" of ideas where people agree and
disagree and come up with something better. This is exactly how
Pirsig's ideas came into being in the first place! It wasn't that
"Aristotle's metaphysics evolved", but that Pirsig saw something he
strongly disagreed with, and came up with something better.
You can see the issue, I think, if you substitute "Pirsig's ideas"
for "The MOQ" in your sentence, suggesting that "Pirsig's ideas are
capable of evolving towards something better". Okay, but how? If its
"his ideas", and if derivation or deviation from them moves one
outside "The MOQ", then how will his ideas evolve? All we can do is
speak with greater and greater precision about what he said, but if
we want to find evolution we have to look at the larger dialogue.
[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.
[Arlo]
Exactly. What we need, then, is a term to describe the "school" that
builds off this foundation. Qualityism? D/S Metaphysics?So we can
say, for example, that both Granger and Pirsig are "Qualityists", but
may offer some unique distinctions to each others ideas.
Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating labels per se (in fact I'd
personally advocate against them, which is why I say "Pirsig's
ideas"), but I think in this case the issue seems to be that one
label is being appropriated for two distinct things, and this is
causing the problem you are arguing against.
[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]
I think you do see the problem, you see it when you point to the way
others are using the term. I'm agreeing with you here, by the way, if
he named his ideas "The Metaphysics of Quality" then this label
should be applied to his ideas. Even Peirce coined the word
"Pragmaticism" to differentiate between his ideas as "Pragmatism" as
it was understood. But one still wouldn't say "Pragmaticism says...",
its "Peirce says..."
In any event, I know I am beating a dead horse here. I'm not arguing
against you, I hope you understand, I am just trying to illuminate a
problem that derives from this terminology, and is the "cause" (if
you will) of the disagreements over "one/many MOQ(s)".
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
