Gentlemen, (Arlo and Dan), A few points to consider. One, "The MoQ says" is an entirely valid and rhetorically effective construction because "the MoQ" is purely an intellectual pattern - a "metaphysic" - a closed system (with a built-in openess feature!) which describes the philosophical underpinnings of reality. How this has been constructed, and what it has been constructed into, is something that "speaks" in a sense. It was designed to do so, after all, and it'd be a pure shame if it spoke to no one. As it is, we are all here and discussing it because it does speak to us and has spoken to us and the fact we take differing aspects of its teachings as its main voice, should not be surprising to anyone who has heard of the blind men and the elephant.
"Pirsig says" tho, is an entirely differing thing because a "Pirsig" is not purely an intellectual pattern, but a living, breathing human who exists on many levels at once. The fact that the MoQ is a construction of a Pirsig, should not obviate the differences between the two. Many philosophers have constructed systems which then take on independent life of their own. Lila's "Child" is a very exact analogy for the parental interest a philosopher takes in his/her work. > >Arlo: > > You could remedy this, I think, by using "representations" in place of > > "interpretations" at the end of the sentence, as such. > > > > Your interpretations run contrary to what the MOQ is saying. And as long > as > > they do, they are not high quality representations of the MOQ. > > Dan: > So interpretations are actually representations? > John: I think Dan partly pins the problem with your formulation, Arlo. Using a different arrangement of letters to represent the exact same concept isn't very helpful. "Projection" would probably work as well, for all projection is equally also, an interpretation and a (mental) representation. The real weakness though, is you're using the "Q" in "MoQ" ambiguously and flippantly. High "quality" representation of the Metaphysics of "Quality" is problematic. It seems to me to beg the real question, of a subjective judgment. > > >Arlo: > > This makes more sense, as it agrees with your stance that there is one > MOQ > > and deviations from this are "interpretations" and not accurate recounts > of > > "what the MOQ says". > > > > But again, if you restate your sentence with "Pirsig" replacing "the > MOQ", > > maybe you can see this clearly. > > Dan: > But wouldn't that just be RMP doing the interpreting then? How is that > different than, say, dmb or Ant doing the interpreting? > > John: I know what Arlo is going to say to this one! He's gonna fall back on authoritarianism. Trust a trained academic to follow certain patterns in thinking, every time. Since Pirsig invented the MoQ, only what he says is fully valid. At least, that's the stance he's taken in the past. I disagree. What is valid to me, is what Pirsig said and I agree with. Sometimes I can be brought to agree (even if I have a hard time seeing it) if EVERYONE else, including Pirsig, puts their social weight upon one certain interpretation or projection, but not always. Life itself can contradict ideas that everybody else accepts and when this happens, life is right, and people are wrong. For instance, everybody around here seems to think that the phenomena of "emotions" are biological. But this is plainly wrong since emotions are obviously a function of a higher ordered brain than an amoeba has. Or a snake, for that matter. Emotions as we understand the word, instantiate in the chemical-nervous systems of warm-blooded mammals but even then, not automatically. Their reality and patterns are formed by social interactions and it's possible even to produce humans with no emotional affect. I've made this point many times and nobody has been able (or even tried) to argue me out of it. But the only real support for the position comes from "Pirsig said it, therefore I believe it." > > Dan: > > > We all interpret the world according to our own individual > experiences, and that includes the MOQ. But there are high quality > intrepretations vs low quality interpretations of both the world and > the MOQ. > > I agree, Dan. Now the question remains, is it possible for later interpretation to be higher quality than its parent understood? If not, then the child will never be allowed to grow. John on the road, finding broadband and peace 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
