Hi Christoffer 4 Mars:
Chris originally: > >> The MOQ is a theory - it isn?t the Dynamic Quality it talks about > >> as well we all know, and it can never be. The DQ/SQ divide brings > >> about a new way of interpreting the world - but that?s what we do > >> with the MOQ - we interpret. Even the WORDS Dynamic Quality brings > >> us away from it. Bo commented: > > The notion of a Quality beyond the MOQ brings on an > > Quality/DQ//SQ "metaphysics" and if Quality is to be kept outside > > THIS one another QUALITY/Quality//DQ///SQ emerges. Give up the idea > > of a Quality outside the MOQ, the two are identical. Also the idea > > of words as inferior is untenable. Language is the sea we swim in. Chris now > Yes. There is really no disagreement with what you say here from my > side. What I meant, but was quite poorly expressed was - if I may give > it another try: The mystification of the MOQ is in my book a > regression of it. For the MOQ to work as it is intended everything has > to be able to be incorporated in it and work just as well as it would > without it - and hopefully better - this goes for science and all > intellectual patterns as well. The mystics are those who regard theorizing as missing the point, and language the epitome of irrevelance. Yours above looked as if you had joined the mystics, but I may have been wrong. > Now: you could make the MOQ anti-intellectual and say that intellectual > patterns should be destroyed to open up to Quality, but to say so makes > the MOQ a lower level thing. My "destruction of intellect" was ment to free the MOQ to take its righteous place above the static range, leaving intellect unscathed behind. > A social one. Because it is true that theorizing about the world was > not necessary before the S/O thinking, and posed no problem, everything > just was (The MOQ says that everything has always been Quality, but it > has been interpreted differently). I see your point - even the danger of a MOQ-Social level "alliance", but this danger is caused by a MOQ not free from intellect (a Trojan Horse within). Pirsigs speaks about a MOQ that will set the 4th. level right by showing that knowledge and science are fraudulent. This is dangerous, the said patterns are intellect's spear-point and blunting them blunts intellect. Its rise above the social level is as valuable as any and must not be underrated. > When the S/O thinking comes along this brings about the 4th level, and > a problem in how people view the world. ZMM makes those problems quite > clear. However - the MOQ aspires not to break down the SOM, but to > change it, and, in a way to rule it, just as every new level rules a > lower level. Within the MOQ all levels must be sustained (and they > are!) but with the MOQ as the overall interpreter that brings harmony > to all of it. Just as biology functions in society - but differently - > in the same manner intellectual patterns will function - must function > - in a MOQ ruled world. Total agreement! I'm out of adjectives!! > If intellectual patterns is not recognized that brings the MOQ down to > the level of "simple religion" if you will excuse my words. Yes, that's the danger, but a MOQ "above" intellect - above all static levels - containing the levels, not contained by intellect puts things in order > Perhaps I succeeded to express it better now. If not let me know and > I'll give it another try. =) You succeeded, and now I rest-assured. Bo 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/
