Greetings Marsha 21 Nov.you wrote (to Andrè)
> I very much agree with Bo that the Intellectual Level is comprised of > subject/object patterns, and I agree that there should be an emerging > Quality Level above the Intellectual Level. Good. Not because of us forming a faction, but because that is the only possible interpretation of the 4th. level that makes sense. Regarding the MOQ as a "level" it follows from not being (able to be) part of intellect because it (intellect) is part of the MOQ. > I believe the Quality Level represents a paradigm shift as large as the > shift from social patterns to intellectual patterns. Right you are! There is a level-like relationship between the highest static good and the "system" that casts it in that role. By Goodness, it is not every day a new world order is born and some birth pain/difficulties will be encountered. You are a promising "midwife" ;-) > Actually, I think it was modesty that prevented RMP from adding this > new level. Wish it was, but I believe intellect's immune apparatus struck at him upon his discovery of its (intellect's) SOM quality and that he backed down (on this most crucial - SOM = intellect - point to re-gain his sanity. What nonplusses me is that it was the post-hospital Pirsig who wrote ZAMM. > But I also think the MoQ is an intellectual static pattern of value, > while what it points to is Quality: Dyanmic and static, or as I like to > say, unpatterned experience and patterned experience. If we stay with the "birth" analogy, the MOQ was conceived in SOM's womb, but presses on to be born as a separate entity, in MOQ's own vocabulary it is an unruly pattern yet toed its line. Phaedrus delivered a "paper" to his colleagues (if quality was subjective or objective) and but by and by the greater context dawned on him. Your "points to" part I have reservations about, it smacks of a Quality "out there" that the MOQ "in here" is ONE possible rendering of, but as you say below ...... we may not agree with all our respective interpretations. > It puzzles me why everyone doesn't see it, because it seems so obvious > to me. It's like the differnece between Newtonian physics and Quantum > physics, a quantum leap. Bo may not agree with all my MoQ > interpretations, nor I agree with all his, but I did want to state on > these two point I definitaly agree with Bo. Quantum leap, you bet. Bodvar > > > Marsha > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andre > Broersen Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 12:19 PM To: > [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] British Emergentism > > Bodvar: > Platt, Andre, All > > 20 Nov: > > Platt: > > To be precise, all concepts such as "time" and explanatory > > dimensions" are intellectual PoV. Which brings to mind Bo's idea > > that the MOQ is transconceptual and therefore timeless, which fits > > with Quality being outside definition. Maybe we're getting somewhere > > after all. > > Many of the issues raised has been discussed before (and consensus > arrived at?) and resides somewhere in the archives. > > Andre: > You are correct Bodvar, in stating that the intellectual level and > your SOL have been raised over and over again, over a period of more > than 10 years now...though to state/ask about consensus being arrived > at I am not so sure. I have been diving in the archives over the past > few weeks and there isn't any agreement that I could find. > > More learned fellows and women than me have stated their views and who > am I to add anything new to either challenge or confirm? Perhaps it is > better to leave the question regarding the 'mysteries' of the > intellectual level hanging (so to speak) as a continued tension > between DQ/SQ. > > Perhaps this is a cop-out on my part but I do not intend it that way. > > As said before, Mr.Pirsig has let his views be known. I wish to remain > neutral in this matter. It does tend to take up a lot of energy better > spent on other things. > > Questions remain and answers fly right over my head sometimes. E.g why > can the MoQ not be an intellectual PoV, as Pirsig maintains it is? > > Is intuition an intellectual PoV? How is Quality excluded from the MoQ > if the MoQ is an intellectual PoV? > > Anyway, I do not know where this will end up but am sure where I will > end up. And it is not in the percolator. > > Perhaps another level is required. Pirsig has stated not to have > objections to this but he still feels that the four 'levels' are > sufficient plus the Code. I highly respect this stance. > > Regards > Andre > > > > > 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/ > > > 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/
