Consider 3 different points of reference:
b) logical consequences
a) What if Pirsig says 2 inconsistent things about the MoQ?
Then either the Pirsig's view embraces inconsistencies or Pirsig has changed his mind.
b) What if one draws a logical consequence of what they take Pirsig's view to be, but Pirsig himself didn't draw
that same consequence? If instead Pirsig denies that consequence, then the two don't have the same understanding.
c) What if there is a statement that is relevant to the MoQ, but neither follows from Pirsig's views nor is
denied by them?