Chris,
> > SA previously: The moq is the intellectual level.
The moq
> is the social, biological, and the inorganic level,
> too. The moq is dynamic quality. Quality is direct
> > experience. Quality is value is moral. Quality
> is split into two sides of the same coin
> understanding called static quality and dynamic
quality.
> Quality is intellectual. Quality is social.
Quality is
> organic. Quality is inorganic. Quality is dynamic,
too.
> > Value and moral and experience are interchangeable
> > with quality. The moq doesn't grow from anything
> - it is everything.
Chris:
> Well this is just plain wrong.
SA: Maybe if you give specifics as to what is "plain
wrong", it would help.
Chris:
> You cannot put a = between the MOQ and the
> Dynamic Quality it talks about, we may here think
> that a MOQ understanding
> of things is much better, but we also realize that
> it is A understanding. It
> is contained within words, within our brains, seen
> though our eyes: so it's
> static "Just another finger pointing to the moon".
> What you describe seems
> to be the Buddha.
SA: Here's a bunch of quotes pertaining to what the
basic moq is, what quality is, the levels, etc...
[Lila; Ch. 11]
"This division of all biological evolutionary
patterns into a Dynamic function and a static function
continues on up through higher levels of evolution."
SA continues: This quote above states how each level
is static and dynamic.
[Lila; Ch. 12]
"The Metaphysics of Quality says that if moral
judgments are essentially assertions of value and if
value is the fundamental ground-stuff of the world,
then moral judgments are the fundamental ground-stuff
of the world. It says that even at the most
fundamental level of the universe, static patterns of
value and moral judgment are identical."
SA continues: Static patterns of value and morals are
the same ("identical").
[Lila; Ch.13]
"What is today conventionally called 'morality'
covers only one of these sets of moral codes, the
social-biological code. In a subject-object
metaphysics this single social-biological code is
considered to be a minor, 'subjective,' physically
non-existent part of the universe. But in the
Metaphysics of Quality all these sets of morals, plus
another Dynamic morality are not only real, they are
the whole thing."
SA continues: This is why I keep saying SOM is
narrow-minded or limited in perspective, narrow in the
sense of quantity. All morals/values/levels with
dynamic quality "are the whole thing". That's it,
that's all this world is.
[Lila; Ch. 13]
"Ideas are patterns of value. They are at a
higher level of evolution than social patterns of
value."
SA continues: Here's a quote on intellectual
patterns/level/value being defined morally better than
social patterns.
[Lila; Ch. 13]
"Celebrity is to social patterns as sex is to
biological patterns. Now he was getting it. This
celebrity is Dynamic Quality within a static social
level of evolution."
SA continues: Here's another situation in which
dynamic and static are on the same level.
[Lila; Ch. 22]
"Now, it should be stated at this point that the
Metaphysics of Quality supports this dominance of
intellect over society. It says intellect is a higher
level of evolution than society; therefore, it is a
more moral level than society. It is better for an
idea to destroy a society than it is for a society to
destroy an idea. But having said this, the Metaphysics
of Quality goes on to say that science, the
intellectual pattern that has been appointed to take
over society, has a defect in it. The defect is that
subject-object science has no provision for morals."
SA continues: Here's another situation in which SOM
is limited in view as a philosophy. Reality is much
more than what SOM states what reality is.
[Lila; Ch.
"Quality doesn't have to be defined. You
understand it without definition, ahead of definition.
Quality is a direct experience independent of and
prior to intellectual abstractions."
SA continues: We all know the aspect of quality that
isn't defined is dynamic quality. Thus, the "direct
experience" that is "without definition" is dynamic
quality. Once we define dq, we are applying patterns
intellectually to what dq is, thus, defining dq is an
intellectual spov. From above, it is noted value is
quality is moral. Now it is stated how direct
experience is quality, the dynamic aspect of quality.
Thus, value is quality is moral is experience. As
noted above, each level/pattern/value is dynamic and
static. The dynamic aspect of any one level is
undefinable and is directly experienced by a static
pattern. To experience as a rock, I can't do, I'm not
a rock. I can define what a rock is, but I can't
define completely what a rock is, and for one, due to
this direct experience a rock is involved with. Yet,
all is quality, therefore I am you, I am a rock, a
rock is me, in the sense that as quality we are
everything, but once defined staticly we can place
different aspects on distinct levels where rocks and I
in certain aspects will differ. Yet, dynamically, in
an undefinable way, everything is quality - "the whole
thing" (quoted above). We could try to staticly show
how, and it would work, but also this dynamic aspect
leaves the moq with an open mind to what reality is,
which goes on to your next points of discussion.
Chris:
> And what you are saying here below is just. no, the
> MOQ has said there IS a
> intellectual level, the MOQ has said there is
> another way of understanding
> reality, a way where everything is value. But that
> doesn't mean that all
> other ways vanish like *poff* They are still there.
SA: Sure they are still here, but the moq does "poff"
them away. That's what a metaphysics declares. A
metaphysics declares what reality is. The moq is
declaring what reality is. The moq is open, due to
dynamic quality, to change. Yet, once a metaphysics
is used, then reality is understood only as what the
metaphysics in use declares reality to be. The moq
states SOM is limited in scope. SOM is limited in
what information and limited in what reality is for
the moq states reality is also grounded in values and
morals. SOM, as a metaphysics, excludes values and a
whole other range of reality that the moq states
exists. I gave examples above on this issue.
Chris:
> The SOM is still - we
> may not believe it, but most people do.
SA: What "most people"? People that incorporate an
SOM reality into their daily lives is missing out on
morals, values, quality, and a direct experience
understanding of what life/reality is. Do people
really exclude values and morals in their daily lives?
I tend to think not, unless they are feral or
criminal or s/o-scientifically based, but even the moq
is able to explain these patterns into a moral
reality, low in moral level and shows what's missing
in their interpretation of reality, but the moq
explains these aspects very well I think.
Chris:
> I feel it is important that we all
> realize how the rest of the world looks at things -
> how all of the levels
> fit in - before we start proclaiming that everything
> is Quality;
SA: Pirsig states everything is quality, "the whole
thing". Quality is monistic. ZMM discusses the 'One'
is quality. Sure many different philosophy exist, but
the moq states what reality is unto its' own way. It
leaves itself open to an ever defining way of what
this reality is and that's the intellect defining and
undefinable dq. Thus, the quality-intellect
(intellectual level, intellectual patterns,
intellectual static pattern of value, etc...) will
define reality, but a reality that can't be fully
defined leaving the door open to many interpretations
of what reality is, yet, the moq does set certain
guidelines on what reality is - moral, value, etc...
SOM doesn't do this, and this is pointed out endlessly
in Lila and ZMM. SOM is a very narrow view of what
reality is. The moq surpasses SOM with a much wider
incorporation of what reality is, at least these
quotes and explanations above state this to me and I
find agreement with this. Notice dmb's post about
Dewey and James (the pragmatists) that also point out
the fallacies of SOM. SOM is very limited in
explaining what is happening in reality.
If you could point out specifics to what I said
above, and maybe show some quotes of ZMM or Lila that
support your position it might help me understand
where your coming from. Here's why I think the way I
do in a nutshell, from what these quotes I pasted
above from Pirsig's books that this forum is here to
discuss.
Thanks.
bright blue,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
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/
