On Wed 30 January 2008 7:27AM Matt K writes to DMB: <snip>
Matt: Being able to say in a conflict "this side is the more moral side." True, as Ian said, if we don't know what the levels are, that's a problem. But further, say we class them: was it really immoral for gravity to pull Icarus down from the heavens, or was gravity just doing what it does? The frame of many moral questions is different than Pirsig's philosophy. I'm suggesting that the "discreteness" of the levels make them unsuitable for most uses of our new found clarity, that we need more talk about how different these levels are and what that means in practice, because that's going to be the kind of clarity received from Pirsig. Hi Matt and all, To not be able to talk about levels as discrete is unsuitable for morality between levels. IMO there are two horns in this dilemma. There is Order on one side and Manifestation on the other. Ham clearly describes the three things necessary for a manifestation, a law of three. Pirsig suggests a law of four for order. Bo suggests a meta Moq level beyond SOL to describe order, a law of five. I don¹t know if this qualifies as ³more talk about how different these levels are and what that means in practice.² The moon represents inorganic order. How is it held together? Can it only reproduce itself by collision with another body? One-celled-life, is organic order reproducing by division. Sperm-egg by penetration of a cell wall so that two are involved in reproduction is another organic order. Proprietary awareness, consciousness is another order. When two things are perceived as always requiring the same relationship, law, I suppose is another order. Then, a meta-level which is only perceived by a higher awareness is another order. A further level of awareness, enlightenment, makes seven levels. Higher-awareness and enlightenment are only in consciousness. Are there any examples of the last two orders? Choose your hero! The measure is the individual. Joe On 1/30/08 7:27 AM, "Matt Kundert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matt: > Being able to say in a conflict "this side is the more moral side." True, as > Ian said, if we don't know what the levels are, that's a problem. But > further, say we class them: was it really immoral for gravity to pull Icarus > down from the heavens, or was gravity just doing what it does? The frame of > many moral questions is different than Pirsig's philosophy. I'm suggesting > that the "discreteness" of the levels make them unsuitable for most uses of > our new found clarity, that we need more talk about how different these levels > are and what that means in practice, because that's going to be the kind of > clarity received from Pirsig. 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/
