Hello everyone On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 8:21 AM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote: > > [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 guess that is why I tend to use the terminology "the MOQ says" rather than "RMP says." And yes, in a conventional, static intellectual quality sense, Robert Pirsig DID say it. But in order for the MOQ to evolve, I think he saw that he had to (in a Dynamic Quality sense) let go of it. It is still the Metaphysics of Quality, but being both a static and Dynamic document, it has the capability of growth, of "betterment," that it wouldn't have if RMP had held onto it. In a Dynamic sense, he has given the MOQ to all of us. But out of a sense of intelletual respect, I think we all need to recognise that and remain consistent to it even as we add to it and help to grow it. > > [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: Unfortunately, I haven't had the chance to read Granger's work so I cannot really comment on it other than to say it seems apparent that he uses RMP's work to enhance his own. I have read most all of Ant's work though, and all in all he seems to remain quite consistent with the framework of the MOQ. He seems to be building a solid foundation to academically further RMP's work. Now, I am quite against labels too. I always bristle when I read terms like "MOQists" or "Pirsigians" and I don't feel much better about "Qualityists" either. I think labels tend to box us in. While that may seerm inconsistent with what I'm saying about adhering to the framework of the MOQ, it is a metaphysics of everything we are talking about. And therefore to be boxed in is defeating the whole purpose of examining the nature of Quality as reality. If someone were to insist that I put a label on it, I tend to think of us as human beings in search of something better. > > [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..." Dan: Perhaps it depends upon what one is pointing to, and how they're doing the pointing? >Arlo. > 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)". Thank you, Arlo. It is always a pleasure. 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
