[Ant]
As such, when you or I say "the MOQ states" I'd regard that as
referring to our own individual interpretations of the MOQ.
[Arlo]
Of course, when we are stating our own interpretations there isn't a
'right/wrong' condition. If I say "I interpret the MOQ to include X",
you can say you disagree, you can say Pirsig's (or your own, or someone
else's) interpretation is 'better' or more explanatory or more coherent,
etc.
And I guess that's the 'itch' I keep finding myself scratching over the
'The' part of "The MOQ". I keep hearing Pirsig say "People should see
that it’s never anything other than just one person talking from one
place in time and space and circumstance" and to me the "The" (when
taken as a non-rhetorical device) takes the emphasis away from that.
[Ant]
When Pirsig says "the MOQ states" he is using it instead of saying "I
state" because it's less egotistical.
[Arlo]
Right, that's the figurative definition, the one that accepts the
rhetorical device, and its (if it isn't painstakingly obvious) the one I
think is more coherent. You can go back and re-read everything Pirsig
had written and make this substitution without any loss of clarity. But
its the definition that does NOT accept this as a mere rhetorical
device, but instead defines "The MOQ" as something to-be-described,
correctly or incorrectly, rather than as a description (by one person,
at one point in time and space and circumstance) itself.
Its probably not worth belaboring this, but I will make one final
comment. I think its also an 'itch' because in my reading of philosophy
(which, admittedly, isn't thorough) I haven't yet seen any other "The"
being such a central point of the dialogue (if a part at all). Sure, we
read and talk about general umbrella categories (pragmatism, idealism,
etc.) but you never read about "The Idealism" or "The Pragmatism". We
read about Dewey's pragmatism, Peirce's pragmatism, even his
pragmaticism, which is his 'brand', is never described as "The
Pragmaticism". And while you may read "the Pragmaticism of Peirce", you
wouldn't see readers of Peirce arguing about what "The Pragmaticism
says". That sounds even odd to say outloud, doesn't it?
Even when I read something like "Pragmatism says" (without the "the")
what's really being said is "within the philosophical dialogue,
arguments that adhere to certain core similarities are categorized as
pragmatic philosophies, and if you want your argument to be part of this
domain, you need to adhere to certain foundations". And I have no
problem extending the umbrella "MOQ" in this way, to say that what we
mean by "MOQ" is a range of personal philosophies that adhere to some
similar foundation or structure. This takes me back to juxtaposing
Dewey's pragmatism and James' pragmatism with Pirsig's MOQ and Arlo's
MOQ. In this regard, sure the overall field of "MOQism", like pragmatism
or idealism, evolves as divergent and conflicting, or extending and
elaborating, ideas from author's are presented under the umbrella.
And maybe this is what you meant by contrasting "a MOQ" with "The MOQ",
where it would be the same as saying "Pragmatism (a MOQ) holds X and Y,
while Dewey's pragmatism (The MOQ) contrasts with Peirce's pragmatism
(???, see and this is where I think the terminology breaks down, what
would you put here? If one is "The", what are the others?)."
Arlo
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
