Krimel submits: "This classification of patterns is not very original, but the Metaphysics of Quality allows an assertion about them that is unusual. It says they are not continuous. They are discreet. They have very little to do with one another. Although each higher level is built on a lower one it is not an extension of that lower level. Quite the contrary. The higher level can often be seen to be in opposition to the lower level, dominating it, controlling it where possible for its own purposes."
Is: present tense of the verb "to be." Ron: All I can counter with is what Pirsig wrote to Paul Turner which seems to be the most consistent with his theories. " When getting into a definition of the intellectual level much clarity can be gained by recognizing a parallel with the lower levels. Just as every biological pattern is also inorganic, but not all inorganic patterns are biological; and just as every social level is also biological, although not all biological patterns are social; so every intellectual pattern is social although not all social patterns are intellectual." Ron: Core problem, any insights? a consensus would be interesting. [Krimel] My problems with the levels not being discrete are on different grounds but I think Craig raised a good point. The quote from the letter just adds another "level" of confusion. If all biological patterns are in inorganic, all social patterns, biological and all intellectual patterns social doesn't that make all patterns inorganic? Isn't this all just crass evil reductionism? 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/
