Hi Ham, >I find it unreasonable, for >example, to put so much emphasis on the differences between inorganic, >organic, and social phenomena without regard to time, space,
These are inorganic patterns >contrariety, huh? >evolution, This is central to the MOQ. >consciousness, Consciousness is a deduction from reality = Quality just as subjects and objects are or depending on what you mean by consciousness you could equate it with Quality. > esthetics, Are you kidding? > freedom, Freedom is a negative. It says that something is bad not what is good. The MOQ translated freedom into this: "too much static is bad, a little more dynamic would be good." >and desire, all of which seem >far more significant to the history of civilization. Desire is the same as value > And I can't even >conceive of an Intellectual Level apart from man's thought process. In the MOQ thoughts are imagined to have evolved after social patterns which evolved after biological creatures. At the same time, it notes that this itself is an idea, so in that way ideas come first. >And these from Steve ... > >> Unreasonable is a term we use for low quality when we >> are talking about intellectual patterns. > >"Low quality" by whose standards -- that of the collective intellect? Everyone makes this sort of judgment fro themselves. > >> When Pirsig says that the universe is a moral order, >> it is the same as saying that there is no such thing as >> morality in the way it is usually thought of as a set of >> social constructs. Whatever we mean by "value" when >> we talk about morality is the same thing as when we >> talk about the value of true over false. Since there is no >> difference, we can either drop the word morality >> or apply it to all levels. > >It appears that you are now equating morality with truth, in which case "2 + >2 = 4" or "when a man's heart stops he dies" become moral statements. Yes. That's what the MOQ says. >Surely there's a difference between what you call "social constructs" and >"logical constructs". Yes, it is the difference between social patterns of value and intellectual patterns of value. The patterning is different but the value is the same so Pirsig suggests it might make sense to use the words morals and values wherever we talk about Quality which is everywhere so that we can have a more rational framework for considering ethical questions. >> The MOQ says that this cognizant creature is an unknown >> without Quality, so Quality comes first. You suppose that the >> individual comes first. > >No, I do not. I suppose that "first" and "last" apply only to a system in >transition, such as physical existence. First here means primary, not first in time. Time is not primary, it is a pattern of value. >I equate Quality with Value. And >value, as I define it, is made aware only to a cognizant entity that stands >apart from its source or essence. Thus, a world without awareness is a >world without value. For me Quality is meaningless in the absence of a >perceiver. This is in accord with the MOQ except that rather than making the perciever primary it makes Quality primary. Mabe it would help to go to the origin of the MOQ. Pirsig was charged with teaching quality, but he couldn't define what it was. He concluded it could not be defined but that everyone knows what it is. His colleagues asked him if quality exists in the subject or the object. How would you respond to that question? 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/
