Hello everyone On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote: > [Dan] > Yes. It speaks to me. I am attracted to the MOQ by more than the words > written in a book. > > [Arlo] > What else has it said to you, other than the words written in the books? Can > you give me an example of something "The MOQ says", but Pirsig did not?
Dan: "I think the confusion is thinking that having a choice is freedom. Conventionally, that is so. But we are not talking conventionally here. We are using the framework of the MOQ. To have a choice is follow intellectual patterns of value and when we are dealing with static quality, we are without choice." > > [Dan] > It explains reality better than other metaphysics that I am aware of. > > [Arlo] > "The MOQ" did this, and not Pirsig? Pirsig does not explain reality better > than any other metaphysics, but his ideas do? Dan: Of course his ideas do. This seems rather silly, Arlo. > > [Dan] > Maybe you're not listening, my friend. > > [Arlo] > I'm listening. I hear Pirsig's voice clearly. And yours. And mine. Can you > tell me, then, something "The MOQ" has said that Pirsig, or you or me, did > not? Dan: Oh. Now I cannot use the framework of the MOQ to explain what the MOQ says? How am I, without talking to you about the MOQ, say what the MOQ says? Seems a bit difficult, my friend. > > [Dan] > In other words, it is a collection of intellectual patterns of quality. It > is not Robert Pirsig himself. > > [Arlo] > ?? When did I say "The MOQ" was "Robert Pirsig himself"?? Dan: I thought it was your contention that "Robert Pirsig says" is a more proper term than "the MOQ says." Isn't that the logical conclusion of such a statement? That the MOQ is Robert Pirsig? > > [Dan] > He is certainly as free to interpret the MOQ as anyone. > > [Arlo] > Pirsig is as free to interpret the MOQ as anyone? Dan: Well, yes. Why shouldn't he be able to interpret the MOQ? He did so by lending his annotations to LILA'S CHILD. And he has helped Ant by offering his interpretations. Arlo: I am sure Bo will be happy > to hear you say this. Dan: What on earth does Bo have to do with this? Are you saying every interpretation is equally valid? If so, I vehemently disagree. Some are better than others. That goes without saying. Arlo: I'm trying to get a handle on what you're saying, Dan. > One day you seem to want to restrict "The MOQ" to just the ideas expressed > by Pirsig, the next day Pirsig is simply another "interpreter" of "The MOQ". Dan: Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I didn't say all interpretations of the MOQ are equally valid or that RMP is just another interpreter. If you want to get a handle on what I am saying, then read what I am saying. It really isn't that difficult. And no, I am not that wishy washy that I change my tune from day to day. At least I like to think so, anyway. > > [Dan] > How is he not "just another interpretor"? He has put the MOQ "out there" as > a collection of intellectual quality patterns for all the see. > > [Arlo] > This is just confusing language. Its like saying "Pirsig is just another > interpreter of Pirsig's ideas". Dan: You seem to be caught up with "just". Some interpretations are better than others and RMP's should be valued in that light. And yes, you are creating the confusion by stating RMP cannot interpret his own metaphysics. Why is that? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. >Arlo: > And this is right back into the very problem I had been talking about. Now > you are conflating "The MOQ" as being somehow both "Pirsig's ideas" and the > school of ideas derived from or evolving from his ideas. Dan: The MOQ is both RMP's idea and it is evolving into a school of ideas by rights of his sharing that idea. >Arlo: > Take the term "the MOQ" out, and you'll see this confusion disappears. > > Pirsig has spoken his ideas. Others hear those ideas and through agreement > or disagreement build upon those ideas, transform them, etc. Of course he > put his ideas "out there", and of course others will build upon them. That's > the way it has always worked, it is not a unique mechanic here. Dan: Then why the awful confusion? When researchers talk about the theory of relativity they don't say "Einstein says." They say "the theory of relativity says." > > [Dan] > So what difference does it make if we say "Robert Pirsig says" or "the MOQ > says"? Isn't just a personal preference, really? > > [Arlo] > I think as a rhetorical device, its a nice poetic to keep his narrative > flowing. Its when that is forgotten, and the assumption becomes "The MOQ" is > doing the speaking,and Pirsig is just trying to interpret what it is saying, > that some big problems creep in. Dan: You are of course free to think as you will. I think though that you are missing a great deal here. But that's just me. >Arlo: > Now, even with poetics, I'd say a more apt metaphor would be to say "Quality > says...", and that "The MOQ" is Pirsig's "interpretation" of that. Dan: And how is that any different than saying the Metaphysics of Quality says? I do agree though that it is an apt analogy. 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
