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/
