Hi Jorge
> Magnus, you write: " So it seems, if you - as you
> said later on - assume: "the positioning in an
> Evolution axis.
> However, if you view each level as an axis of their
> own, the animal can have value on both the inorganic
> and biological axis".
>
> This is another aspect that better be cleared at
> the start.The way I see it is this: If one classifies
> a number of things in four categories and one calls
> those categories 'levels', one is implying that the
> members of all four categories have at least one
> property in common and that the "level of" that
> property is different for each class.
>
> One can classify individuals in four categories
> according, for instance, to their educational 'level'
> (say, number of years of schooling). One can make
> another classification based on their nutritional
> level or their income level, etc. but, within each of
> them, the criterion used to assign them into groups
> must be the same for all the groups. If not, the word
> Level is an unhappy choice.
Ok, I see your point. But I don't think that's the way Pirsig used the word in
Lila. If you go back to the quote you used a few posts ago:
"Although each higher level is built on a lower one it is not an extension of
that lower level. Quite the contrary. The higher level can often be seen to be
in opposition to the lower level, dominating it, controlling it where possible
for its own purposes."
If you use the word level with your implications, you can't really say that a
4:th grade student is "in opposition" to a 3:rd grade student, right?
I think "dimension" is a better word for what he describes. But I can
understand
why he wouldn't want to use it since it would probably alienate people. "Level"
is a friendlier word.
> Take for instance this sentence of Pirsig: "
> Although each higher level is built on a lower one it
> is not an extension of that lower level" . The merits
> of this proposition can only be discussed if the
> levels refer to the same thing or property; otherwise
> 'everything goes'.
Not sure why it would entail "everything goes"? Pirsig has described 4 levels,
i.e. 4 distinct types of quality events. And since the MoQ is meant to be a
metaphysics, it says that every event that has ever happened in this universe
can be categorized in one (or more) of these 4 levels. That's not "everything
goes".
> I wrote that the four categories must be positioned
> differently along the same axis (which might run, for
> instance, from least evolved to most evolved). Someone
> may propose a different axis; that's O.K.; but to
> propose that each category is positioned differently
> in an axis of its own, (as you do) leaves the matter
> wide open so that whatever we may say is valid.
Ok, you want to sort the things along that axis by some order. You may think
that this order is somehow defined by the MoQ's moral levels and that the axis
becomes divided into 4 sections.
The problems with such a view are many.
* There's no way to describe a universe (at least not our universe) using only
one axis. You can only describe one value with one axis, for example your
"level
of evolution". But that doesn't describe a universe. That only serves as a
subject for discussion on mailing lists.
* To place a thing on this axis, you need to assign a value to it and then see
in which level it ended up in. But the MoQ is not about converting things to
numbers. In the MoQ, you start by looking at what level(s) an event took place.
The level assignment is primary, not the end result.
Magnus
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/
