[John] How this [the MOQ] 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.
[Arlo] All ideas are constructed similarly. All are voices spoken within a historical dialogue. This "designed to" is nonsense, ALL ideas evolve, they always have and they always will. So I ask you, can you tell me something "the MOQ" has said, that neither you, nor me, nor Pirsig, nor Dan nor anyone else has said? I get that its a nice rhetorical convention, but those voices in your head, John, are not "the MOQ", they are you, Dan, Pirsig, Kant, Hegel, and every other voice you've interacted with. [John] Many philosophers have constructed systems which then take on independent life of their own. [Arlo] No. They evolve as new voices are added, as voices disagree, agree, contextualize, critique, revision and reconstruct the ideas. I've said this to Dan in my very first reply weeks ago. On this level "the MOQ" is akin to something like "pragmatism" or "relativity", it is a large field with many competing and contrasting ideas. You could say something like "Qualityism" instead. But if "the MOQ" can never run contrary to Pirsig's ideas, then it will never "evolve", because you are defining "the MOQ" as simply the ideas expressed by Pirsig. If you change them, they are no longer Pirsig's ideas. This is what I meant when I said that different people here are using the term "the MOQ" to refer to different thing. One group uses it in a global sense, like "pragmatism", to refer to a growing body of ideas (which will naturally include disagreement), another group uses it to refer to specifically "just what Pirsig said". [John] Using a different arrangement of letters to represent the exact same concept isn't very helpful. [Arlo] It is NOT the same concept. Representations are not interpretations. Restatements are not interpretations. [John] The real weakness though, is you're using the "Q" in "MoQ" ambiguously and flippantly. [Arlo] This makes no sense. [John] I know what Arlo is going to say to this one! He's gonna fall back on authoritarianism. [Arlo] Of course Pirsig is an authority on Pirsig. And you are an authority on you. That's the authority, if any, I am pointing to you. If you claim you can be as much an authority on Pirsig, or more so, than Pirsig, then you're just kidding yourself. When I want to know what Pirsig says, I ask Pirsig. [John] Trust a trained academic to follow certain patterns in thinking, every time. [Arlo] Like you and your idiotic "those darned academics" slaps? [John] Since Pirsig invented the MoQ, only what he says is fully valid. [Arlo] What he says is valid as it relates to his ideas, sure. Are you going to start telling me what my ideas are too, John? But if you took half a second to read what I write, rather than respond with kneejerk attempts to be Platt, you'd understand that this is simply inane. What Pirsig says is what Pirsig says. How you and I respond is how you and I respond. What you say can be better or it can be worse. I don't even know what "valid" means in this case. Worth paying attention to? [John] At least, that's the stance he's taken in the past. [Arlo] Which simply proves you don't read a thing I say, but just parrot back things from a script. Why? To be a dick? Bored? [John] What is valid to me, is what Pirsig said and I agree with. [Arlo] So something is invalid to you if Pirsig disagrees with something that you agree with? What I value are voices that make me think, and that includes Pirsig's but also many others. I don't cry that I am not more of an authority on Pirsig than Pirsig, that I can't make claims about "what he meant" over his own protestations. There are Pirsig's ideas. Call them collectively "the MOQ", if you will. Some of them I agree with. A few I do not. On a larger level, I think I am staying within a general "Qualityism" tradition, even if I disagree with Pirsig about a point or two. [John] For instance, everybody around here seems to think that the phenomena of "emotions" are biological. [Arlo] I do not agree with this. [John] But the only real support for the position comes from "Pirsig said it, therefore I believe it." [Arlo] So if Pirsig has said that, to him, emotions are biological patterns, then that is what they are... to him. So, if "the MOQ" is what Pirsig said without deviation, then yes, according to the MOQ emotions are biological. If "the MOQ" is the larger field of Qualityism, then you could propose the idea that "a metaphysics of Quality that considers emotions to be social patterns is better than one that considers emotions to be biological". But you can't change what Pirsig said. It simply is where you define what "the MOQ" refers to. Pirsig ideas specifically, or a field of ideas springing from Pirsig's general foundation. 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
