Does the MoQ value its own extension?
The following letters are part of an exchange between LS member Doug Renselle and Robert M Pirsig. Many of the LS have sought to add their own theories and nterpretations onto Pirsig's ideas. Others have insisted that the MoQ is fine the way it is and should be left alone.The question at hand is whether we should take the MoQ as the last word on reality or whether we should see it as merely the starting point.
Dear Mr. Pirsig,
Much of the discussion on TLS is about the sacredness and inviolability of MoQ. I have found almost visceral concern that MoQ be kept absolute. The reason given is your comments on the first page of chapter 12 of Lila. I feel guilty because most of this visceral reaction happened after my Architecture of Quality diagram was posted on TLS site.
I have one simple question, which for me will put MoQ in a philosophical perspective that I can understand: Does MoQ value its own extension?
Sincerely,
Doug Renselle
(September 14, 1997)
Dear Doug Renselle,
My letter of Sept. 6 that Diana put in the news section of the web site seems as though it were written to answer your letter of Sept. 14th. It's completely appropriate that the first open conflict within the Lila Squad should be over the static or Dynamic nature of the Metaphysics of Quality itself!
I think Lila provides the correct answer to this conflict. Without your Dynamic new ideas the MOQ will not grow. Without Bodvar Skutvik's adherence to the fundamental structure of the MOQ, the MOQ will not last. As he knows from his own efforts to advance the MOQ among European philosophers, the cultural resistance to the MOQ is enormous, they don't even want to hear about it. Any changes in the MOQ at this time which might dilute or divide it would only strengthen the real enemy, the Subject-Object Goliath that's waiting to pounce on it. I'm enclosing a review by the Oxford metaphysician, Galen Strawson, and from one of New York's leading newspapers to give you an idea of what we're up against. There are dozens more like them.
The specific answer to your question, "Does the MOQ value its own extension," is that the MOQ values its own extension but not its own destruction and the dividing line between these two cannot be decided in general terms. The content of the first page of chapter 12 of Lila is really the essence of the MOQ and if someone wants to change this to something else he should certainly be allowed to do so. I think that to prevent confusion, however, it would be better if he called the results of his work by some distinguishing name. Otherwise he would be leaving the impression that I and others had approved of this change and had adopted it when, in fact, some of us might never have heard of it.
ZMM itself is probably a good example of the kind of "extension" you are speaking of. It is not Zen as practiced in Japan. But you'll notice there is a disclaimer at the beginning of the book making certain no one thinks I am claiming any Zen authenticity. If I hadn't put it in there you can be sure there would have been plenty of visceral reaction from representatives of the Zen organizations.
Best regards
Robert M Pirsig
(September 30, 1997)
back to the Forum