Bo, No need to get frustrated, I, for one, haven't asked you, or anyone, to save me. Don't think the others have made that request of you either. Are you failing to do something? What might that be? What might that be? What might that be?
Marsha At 12:04 PM 11/30/2007, you wrote: >Hi Marsha > >On 30 Nov. you wrote: > > > It's a beautifully written post! > >Thanks, but it obviously didn't make a dent. OK, who is here to >change views? > > > From my heart, or whatever,,, to force the MOQ > > out of the Intellectual Level and into a level of > > its own would be to put the unknown ((DQ > > (Quality) into a system. Within a system it > > would be at the mercy of every form of butchery. > >First about forcing the MOQ out of the intellectual level. It is >already beyond it - has never been there - if you subscribe to >logic. The 4th. level is a sub-system of the MOQ (a lesser >container) and can't contain be whole MOQ (container) > > This problem of trying to describe value in terms of > substance has been the problem of a smaller container > trying to contain a larger one. Value is not a subspecies > of substance. Substance is a subspecies of value. When > you reverse the containment process and define > substance in terms of value the mystery disappears: > substance is a "stable pattern of inorganic values." The > problem then disappears. (digital LILA p 25) > >Why did Pirsig so grossly violate his own words by postulating the >MOQ as an intellectual pattern? My guess is either he just forgot >or was in SOM-land where intellect is a mental "container" and >the MOQ a mental construe and not subject to spatial >requirements. That most of you people haven't moved an iota out >of SOM is plain, but the creator of the MOQ? The above about >value not substance ...etc ought to rule that out. I'm just lost. > >Next about the MOQ a level unto itself. As tried conveyed many >times it is not a level inside the static hierarchy, but merely the >plane where one must be to bring the MOQ to bear. The MOQ >itself. That this also "contains" the dynamic part goes without >saying, but I can't see that this violates its dynamism. The MOQ >says noting about it except that is is dynamic. This keeps it free >from "butchery" and can't be any "worse" than Pirsig saying that it >is dynamic. It's not sophistry, but he has already said something >about it. > >Pirsig obviously wanted to convey the "taboo" of the DQ so badly >that he ended up in "butchering" the MOQ. I remember a diagram >of the MOQ (concentric rings) where the paper itself was DQ, >that's OK, but then he added ...but stretches beyond the paper to >the end of the world. This sounds impressive but is impossible, in >drawing diagrams the paper is "it all" and when speaking/writing >language is "it all", to give the impression that one can transcend >these media is an illusion. The MOQ is the "diagram" and >postulating DQ beyond it butchers it. OK, RMP could possibly not >anticipate all possible objections and finer point and you (all) >should note his final words in the Paul Turner letter words about >his advice not being a Papal Bull, perhaps just bull ...- > >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/ 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/
