Hi All, When Wim said that we should answer as to whether "'the MoQ' is understood to be [Pirsig's] ideas which we can only interpret" based on our definitions of an intellectual pattern, my first thought was that while use of the possessive "Pirsig's" maintain's the intellectual level meaning of identifying which ideas are up for discussion, it loses the social pattern reference of indicating personal property. In other words, thinking of the MOQ as an intellectual pattern, the MOQ does not belong to anyone since property ownership does not exist intellectually. This is why when Pirsig comments on the MOQ in LC and other places, he often qualifies his statements or explicitly says that we should not take his word to be gospel. He is not right about the implications of the MOQ because he is Robert M Pirsig. His ideas must be considered based only on their intellectual quality rather than based on his social status as the Great Author.
The MOQ is a pattern of thought that anyone can participate in, but it remains to be settled what is the particular set of Pirsig's and perhaps other's ideas that are referred to under the banner of "the MOQ." With the exception of Bo, perhaps we can agree that the MOQ is a root expansion of rationality based on postulating Quality as empirical reality that attempts to explain experience in terms of static value patterns and dynamic quality. Fewer of us but most of us would also agree that the static value patterns are understood in the MOQ to form an evolutionary hierarchy of inorganic, biological, social, and intellectual value patterns. Without these understandings, someone could perhaps be talking about "an MOQ" but not "the MOQ" in my opinion. From this point, we (as well as Pirsig) try to reason out the implications of such postulates. We (as well as Pirsig) can then say things like,"If I understand the MOQ correctly, there is no such thing as human nature," and we can be right or wrong about what the MOQ implies. Whether we are right or wrong depends also on how we define the levels, and how we define the levels is also clearly up for discussion--a conversation in which Pirsig himself has participated in LC and in his recent letter to Paul. So in short, I think we can talk about "the MOQ" if we have a shared understanding of what is essential in use of that term and we can also talk about our own understandings and interpretations of what "the MOQ" says and its implications in a manner that is consistent with the following quote: "Unlike SOM, the MOQ does not insist on a single exclusive truth. If subjects and objects are held to be the ultimate reality then we're permitted only one construction of things -- that which corresponds to the 'objective' world -- and all other constructions are unreal. But if quality or excellence is seen as the ultimate reality then it becomes possible for more than one set of truths to exist. Then one doesn't seek the absolute 'Truth.' One seeks instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of things with the knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future this explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until something better comes along. One can then examine intellectual realities the same way he examines paintings in an art gallery, not with an effort to find which one is the 'real' painting, but simply to enjoy and keep those of value." (Ch 8) Though "the MOQ does not insist on a single exclusive truth," if we have no shared understanding of what the MOQ is then we are simply not talking about the same thing at all when we say "the MOQ." Perhaps we can agree that when we say "the MOQ" or "Pirsig's MOQ" we mean at least something like the following suggested definition: "a root expansion of rationality based on postulating Quality as empirical reality that attempts to an intellectual explanation of experience in terms of static value patterns and dynamic quality where static value patterns are understood to form an evolutionary hierarchy including inorganic, biological, social, and intellectual value patterns." Additions? Subtractions? Thoughts on the idea of agreeing on an essential definition of "the MOQ"? Thanks, Steve MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/ MF Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
