Platt, Chris, and other "old-timers" --
Since Chris has presented these MoQ postulates for the approval of all, I have some questions... Quoting Christoffer Ivarsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 1. Quality. Quality is reality. Quality is the ethical principle > of the good. Thus reality is a moral order. Quality, like reality, > is known to us as awareness. As such, it is impossible to define. If Quality (the ethical principle of goodness) is reality, are we to assume that reality is perfect, incorruptible and incapable of supporting adversity? If so, how do we account for natural catastrophes, disease, starvation, floods, malformed organisms, and suffering? Are such evils only man's view of reality (i.e., imperfections in experience)? > 2. Morality. Morality is a synonym for Quality. Thus reality is > a moral order. A phenomenon is considered moral, or high Quality, > to the extent that it advances freedom. Again, how are we to account for immorality, violence, greed, and arrogance? Does this not mean that reality also includes "poor quality" and that "a moral order" can only be recognized in terms of what constitutes an "immoral order"? > 3. Value. Value is a synonym for Quality. Value encompasses > what are usually known as causation and substance. Value is > understood through the sense of value. Value is a measure of goodness or worth. In what way does it encompass causation and substance? > 4. Dynamic Quality and static quality. There are many ways > to divide Quality but the best way is into patterns of Dynamic > and static value or experience. Dynamic Quality is pure > experience; static quality is filtered experience. Dynamic > Quality creates the world; static quality preserves it. > Dynamic Quality is more aesthetic than static quality. > Neither Dynamic nor static quality can survive without the other. What is a "static value"? What "filters" experience? > 5. Static levels. Quality became manifest in our world by > an evolutionary sequence of Dynamic Quality Events. > Left in the wake of these events were four static levels > of evolution -- inorganic, biological, social and >> intellectual. Each level is a static pattern of Quality, > organized and governed by its own moral laws -- the > laws of physics, biology, culture and reason respectively. Did these moral laws exist before they were formalized by Science and the MOQ? > 6. Static awareness. Each higher level evolved from the > lower level but has become a discrete level. From the point > of view of any level it is only possible to evaluate > phenomena at that level. Does this evolution of discrete levels occur spontaneously, or by some unspecified principle, such as the law of probability or a "universal intelligence"? > 7. Static dominance. Because each lower level is unable to > evaluate the other levels, it considers itself to be the most > moral and strives to dominate the others. I take it, then, that the levels are themselves sentient, cognizant entities. > 8. Static morality. The levels at a higher stage of evolution > are more moral than levels below. Intellectual patterns take > moral precedence over social patterns, social patterns over > biological and biological patterns over inorganic. But, according to 1 (above) reality is Quality (good). If some levels are inferior to others, they are not as good, so that Morality is compromised. > 9. Dependency. Higher qualities depend on lower qualities > for survival. Thus a higher quality can only dominate a lower > one in so far as it does not endanger its stability. If the higher qualities are superior, why is their domination of the lower qualities restricted? It would seem that evolution is an obstacle to morality rather than an asset. Wouldn't it be more moral to have only the highest quality level? > 10. Evolution. The universe is evolving away from low quality > and towards high quality. What role, if any, does man have in this evolution of high quality? > 11. Truth. Truth is an intellectual value pattern. There is no single > truth, only high quality and low quality truths. What is a "low quality truth", and how are we to know its quality? > 12. Self. The self is undivided Quality, encompassing both > Dynamic and static patterns. As with Quality, the self is both > one and many. According to the dictionary, a self (oneself) is a single identity. What is an "undivided" self? This is not intended to be "picky", Chris. I'm sure that these postulates correctly represent Pirsig's Quality thesis. But I also think you'll see that my questions are valid from a logical perspective, and they are quite likely to be asked by anyone not familiar with the MoQ. Thanks for your clarification. Regards, Ham 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/
