Hi Spirit of Adirondacks. On 19 Nov. u wrote:
> Bo, I have a question below for you. I'm lagging behind but have a policy of just downloading and reading posts once a day. I noticed that you had other comments, but will work myself backward ... like the contrarian I am. > > [Platt] > > I don't see where Pirsig posits "human reason as the > > ultimate measure of > > understanding." It has value to be sure, as you > > demonstrate in this post. But > > like me, Pirsig is big on aesthetic understanding > > which can't be explained. > Platt, you stated in another post in this thread that intellect can't > define what is good. I agree. I'm curious if this is what Bo is > trying to say when he says the moq is the meta-level and intellect is > not quality, etc... My words seem to undergo some distortion when filtered through you. Intellect not quality, I can't have said that. Intellect - or MOQ's 4th level - is the value of the subject/object distinction. The highest and best static value, only subordinate to MOQ's DQ/SQ. About the meta-level. All big systems create a point of view that isn't part of itself, a God's Eye meta-point. You don't find Newton's Physics inside Newton's Physics where it would be subject to gravity and its various laws. Thus the MOQ - as the biggest system ever created - IS ITSELF, not a part of itself. I don't know what Pirsig wanted to achieve by postulating the MOQ as an intellectual level, at times I feel that the MOQ was too big for him to survey, that our job is to help explore it, and I'm sure the current intellect is a blind ally. Bo 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
