It seems a bit silly, I think, to say something like "according to the MoQ" or "the MoQ says, this or that or the other thing." The MoQ does not speak. Pirsig uses the term nearly 150 times in Lila, more often than not, as a way to avoid the first person pronoun. It is similar to his use of Phaedrus in ZMM, where the mad avatar, allows Pirsig to cleave his narrative between the first and third person. In Lila both Phaedrus and the MoQ are characters. The narrator disappears in the bifurcation and a first person narrative moves entirely into the third.
This is literary sleight of hand and it is lovely. It is among the qualities that makes Pirsig's writing so compelling. But for someone outside the narrative to speak in the first person voice of the MoQ, is ridiculous. As Pirsig himself says the MoQ is static. Lila has been written. The deed has been done. The RadioLab podcast entitled Bliss, tell the story of Charles Bliss, who survived the Nazi concentration camps in part because his wife smuggled him musical instruments and he was entertaining enough keep his guards happy. He and his wife escaped to China where Bliss encountered ideographic writing. He has seen firsthand how the Nazis had twisted the meaning of words. Rather like today, "We the People." has come to mean "government bureaucrats." He thought this malleability of meaning in the written word allowed the concealment of meaning. The writing word was a source of much evil in the world. He set about to invent a system of ideographic symbols whose meaning would be accessible to anyone who saw it regardless of culture or custom. Bliss thought that an iconic symbol system would be easy to learn. By evoking visual images, such a code could be decoded with less mental effort and confusion. This would make is difficult to conceal meanings in the way that alphabetic writing does. His system became known as Blissymbolics. Pretty much nobody paid attention. Eventually Bliss got a letter for a school for developmentally delayed children in Canada. They had found his system very effective in helping non-communicative children interact with others. Bliss was ecstatic. He corresponded with the staff and went to visit the school. Eventually the system came to be used in various parts of the world. But then Bliss began to complain. It seems that in their use of his system, teachers were making changes. Adding things that facilitated interaction among the community of users. Worse the teachers were using his system as a bridge for students to learning to read and write in their native languages. He had tried to create tool to destroy the master's house and the master was using it to build an addition. I don't want to spoil this story. I cried when I listened to it. I have not done it justice here and I willingly concede to any errors in my version. The point is Bliss invented a dead language. When it came to life he was dismayed that, the life it came to was its own. When it started breathe and adapt to its environment, he saw it as monstrous. In the end Bliss invented a dead language and worked to make sure it stayed that way. Pirsig on the other hand claims no authority over the MoQ. He has had very little to say about it for more than 20 years. In his annotations to Dan's book , Pirsig rarely allows the MoQ speak. He doesn't command it to be his personal pronoun. He often clarifies that he is voicing his opinion about discussions that went on here in this forum. He is not working to silence the opinion of others. He asks no one to shut up and leave or questions why they came. He calls no one names. In Lila's Child he is quite clear that he hopes to avoid the charge of kibitzing. He is only slightly more comfortable in the role of philosophologist, commenting on a historical exchange. In doing so he offers his interpretation of his own writing or rather his interpretation of what others have said about his writing. He does not demean those who do not share his interpretation. He understands that his texts, are now external to himself. They have their own lives and open themselves up to be interpreted, understood and lived. His silence on this forum speaks volumes about his reluctance to settle doctrinal disputes; to be a kibitzer. It would take considerable conceit for anyone else to assume that role for themselves. It is one thing to claim that one's interpretation has better explanatory power than another's or that one's interpretation is more consistent with the interpretations of some others. But to insist that there is a proper and singularly correct interpretation of the "tenants of the MoQ," flies in the face not only of what Pirsig has said with respect to his writing, but with his own deeds and actions. The only thing worse that a kibitzer telling you, "all the great moves you could have made if only you were as smart as he is." would be some asshole standing over your shoulder using the MoQ as a first person pronoun. As Charles Bliss discovered, becoming a static latch in your own dynamic system, however noble your intentions, puts an end to its flourishing. But at least Bliss had only himself to blame. Pirsig's prophets in the tradition of toadies throughout the ages, smother with their zeal. Their conviction that they speak with the master's voice gives them a fervor the master never had. They assume a mantle of authority the master never claimed. It is pretty clear that Bliss would have been happy with sycophants. He craved an army to do battle with the perversion of the written word. If it could not, he would as soon see it perish. It seems a shame that one who encourages his ideas to grown of their own accord would to be cursed with purists, co-opting his words but not his deeds. 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
