Hi Platt
Platt says:
Because dmb and I disagree so violently politically, he probably regards
the fact that I agree with his interpretation of the MOQ as expressed in
his posts to Krimel and to Magnus (above) as unwelcome. Nevertheless, I
think he is on the money.
As for the evolution of the levels and their independence, the following
from Pirsig sums it up well:
(letter from Robert Pirsig to Anthony McWatt, May 3rd, 1997)
"i.e. preference is seen as being on a continuum rather than suddenly
manifesting itself at the human level. In the MOQ, the higher up the
evolutionary ladder you go (from sub-atomic particles to people) the more
freedom you have in making preferences. This is why generally a person's
experience will be that much richer and complex than a dog's while the
dog's experience will be that much better than a tree's which will be
better than a piece of rock's and so on."
The driving force of evolution is DQ, i.e., freedom. The preserving force
is SQ, i.e., harmony. From an MOQ perspective, the levels are discreet by
their harmony.
As Ron has pointed out, discreet is not the same as discrete, and the consensus
seems to be that it is discrete we ought to discuss, not discreet.
Anyway, I fail to see how harmony would add anything useful. It would still make
fuzzy borders, or fractal as suggested by Arlo I think. And that is by no means
discrete. I simply don't think Pirsig has thought this through, he claims one
thing about the levels (about them being discrete and dependent), but the way he
then describes the levels themselves are not consistent with those assumptions.
That's just not acceptable to me.
Magnus
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/
