Krimel:
> I find myself in the unusual position of being in
> near total agreement
> with
> you on this one. As a theory of morality the MoQ
> offers precious little
> guidance in what is moral. As a theory rooted in
> evolution it has a
> peculiarly naive view of evolution. There are an
> awful lot of synonyms
> for Quality in there. Are the synonyms supposed to
mean
> something or are
> they all undefined as well? And what is 'self' doing
in
> there at all?
Ron:
> If I may throw in my two cents worth, Looking at the
> levels in A purely objective fashion is the first
fallacy I
> believe.
SA: I agree with you Ron. You've helped me
understand this aspect of the moq.
Ron:
> the levels are not a representation
> of an objective reality, they are an intellectual
> understanding of experience.
SA: Yes. Subjectivity and democracy go hand and
hand. A society of unique, individual humans who have
gathered to cooperate and yet hold their own
intergrity, their uniqueness, I'd say Pirsig was
expressing an intellectual understanding of his own
with the level system. Subjectivity also goes hand
and hand with analogy. This level system is an
analogy of how Pirsig understands reality.
Ron:
> ...experience equates to
> (Quality/morality/reality ) pick your
> objective nomenclature. The Self is a clumsy word
> but consciousness
> comes closer to the term experience.
> So that The MoQ offers that MoQ Morality is
> experience. The highest form
> Being pre-intellectual. The most moral.
SA: And this is why Pirsig and the moq do not have a
moral system all layed out and defined. Doing so
would cut off its' breath, its' living attribute. A
moral system defined can NOT change to new
understandings. Same with science, it can NOT have
theories go untested and subject to change. The moq
leaves the door open to change, the new ideas, this is
why dq is important. The mystical in the moq becomes
a scientific process. This pre-intellectual
experience is where all intellectualizing patterns
come from, moral patterns come from. This
pre-intellectual is literally at our finger tips, and
we learn from it. It is grounded in this universe,
the mystical is NOT 'out there' somewhere, but
empirical and we try to decipher it. Our reasoning is
ongoing, and many more ideas will come, if history
teaches us anything, so, centuries from now what we
can intellectualize, even scientifically, will
probably change. Nothing in science is exact, yes
more precise than say two hundred years ago, but not
100% in accuracy - thus why probability and on and on
this understanding goes.
woods,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total
Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
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/
