Hi Bo, > Bo: >>> Right, the MOQ is a metaphysics, exactly what I have struggled >>> to express. Besides the 4th. level is static and can't contain the >>> very DQ/SQ system... > > Steve: >> The intellectual level doesn't hope to contain "the very DQ/sq >> system." DQ is obviously not contained in a static level. The 4th >> level contains descriptions of DQ. The MOQ isn't reality itself, it >> is words about reality. You are confusing the menu and the food. > > Bo now: > You say that the intellectual level contains descriptions of DQ > (which it doesn't, it says it's indefinable) but as the MOQ is an > intellectual pattern (by your logic) even DQ is a mere description.
Steve: Pirsig's books contain lots of descriptions of Quality and DQ, one of which is the description that Quality is undefinable. For example... Pirsig: "Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality, the source of all things, completely simple and always new. It was the moral force that had motivated the brujo in Zuñi. It contains no pattern of fixed rewards and punishments. Its only perceived good is freedom and its only perceived evil is static quality itself-any pattern of one-sided fixed values that tries to contain and kill the ongoing free force of life." > Bo: > - for where was Quality before Pirsig? I invoke ZAMM (page 30) Steve: In that passage Pirsig demonstrates that, based on the SOM premise, since the Laws of Gravity were neither mind nor matter prior to Newton, an SOMist would have to conclude that they did not exist. Most people not being true SOMists (does such an animal really exist?) would find such a conclusion unsatisfactory and be open to a "Quality" explanation. I think Pirsig wants to show that scientific laws are aesthetic intellectual creations rather than discoveries of pre-existing objective facts. In Lila we find that gravity is an inorganic pattern of value and Newton's Laws of Gravity is an intellectual pattern of value. It is an MOQ premise that that inorganic patterns evolved prior to biological, social, and intellectual patterns of value. Bo: > I'm not mocking Pirsig, it's just his splendid logic backfires. > It's no > news that great scientific theories re-construct reality, and like a > crystallization spreads to include the past. Steve: I can see a great scientific theory reframing thought about inorganic and biological patterns but not reconstructing the patterns themselves since they evolved prior to intellectual patterns. Bo: > A metaphysical > upheaval even more because the world has not experienced one > since SOM and it was gradual. Phaedrus of ZAMM tries correctly > to point this out and show that there were realities before the > scientific revolution - the levels below the 4th. Steve: Besides the passage you just cited, can you provide other examples where you see Pirsig as demonstrating that other realities existed previously? Are these not different ways of intellectualizing experience rather than different experience? Bo: > - but Pirsig of LILA > forgets this and violates his own insight by making the MOQ a > mere description of a Quality reality that has existed from the > beginning of time. Steve: Were you part of a different reality before reading ZAMM? Are you now part of a different reality than the SOMists of today? Is Bush the president in your reality? If not, I may want to try yours. Regards, Steve 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/
