Hi Matt (the stealthy) On 1 Dec. you wrote:
[Bo] > > >The big difference is that no religion has the level > > >arrangement (perhaps material, biological and social) but NOT the > > >intellectual, at least not (in my interpretation) as the > > >subject/object distinction. By having this as its topmost value > > >Quality's GOOD is beyond religion's GOD, in its vocabulary religion > > >belongs at the social level of goodness. Matt: > Are you saying that religion doesn't promote intellectual > thinking/goodness? Are you saying that Quality is greater than the idea > of God because of Pirsig's (somewhat dogmatic/meaningless) Quality > hierarchy? You naturally overlooked the "at least in my ..." clause and ask a bit incredulous if religion(s) don't promote thinking (if "goodness" is an exclamation or the slash means "or"?) which shows the difficulty of removing the "thinking" definition from the 4th. level. Again and again one starts from square one as newbies arrive, dead set on their preconceived wisdom. When your premises in addition (to misunderstaning the 4th. level) is that the static hierarchy is "dogmatic and meaningless" no wonder. But listen: The idea of God is also the idea of Zews or any other deity - as is that of the moon and stars as deities - and in a MOQ context this is social value (for a value it is) but compared to it intellect is a higher value and deems the idea of god(s) to be superstition. This it does because intellect is a blind to being a value level (as the rest of the levels are) only from the MOQ the value context is seen. > Quality will always win at its own play ground; it is a common case in > philsophy, especially pseudo philosophy. Just because Pirsig says > religion is at the social rather than the intellectual level is a > stupid reason to think so. You're saying that Quality's Good is beyond > religion's God because the MoQ/Pirsig says so, an idiodic reason for > agreeing with something. I like your blunt style, but am impervious to such arguments. The proof of the MOQ is the enormous explanatory power - compared to the SOM - which is due to the level system. The initial Quality=Reality (all is value) sentence is a postulate and can't be proved. I find Pirsig's many demonstrations futile, the proof is the new world order and its ensuing clarity, but it - first - requires an open mind and then a different understanding of the 4th. level, Bo PS: If you wrote this: > Bo, this should be responded to by someone who knows more about the MoQ > than me (or Marsha, for that matter). your mind can't be all closed. I try to act the MOQ scholar, but what do I get? 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/
