Hi Bruce Have we met? Anyway welcome 15 Dec.
> IMO, sitting on the hot stove represents a "value event" that triggers > a reaction that demonstrates the "memory" within the biological level > of static quality. Everything is Quality and "events" thereof, the automatic reaction to unpleasant experiences is a biological event - I agree with you there - and also that it evokes some memory (ROM "read only") but the workings of the biological mechanisms isn't really MOQ's business, but the intellectual level's (science's) > The reaction is not part of social or intellectual levels and does not > have to be evaluated before a response is made. IMO, a "value event" > may be part of dynamic quality, but I think dynamic quality would be > something different: perhaps sitting on a stove does not trigger a > response because the individual has developed an "assbestos" buttocks. > That would be dynamic and would become static quality if such a trait > would become part of the norm where groups of people could sit on hot > stoves. That the biological level isn't (part of the) social and intellectual levels is a truism, still it is "society's" necessary fundament, otherwise agreement. However I find this "Hot Stove" example a bit un-called for in LILA where the static level system is laid out. It was originally meant to demonstrate how immediate value is - along with ZAMM's "leading edge" example - but after the DQ/SQ had been made is it most confusing to invoke DQ "here, there and everywhere". But - alas - Pirsig obviously thinks the MOQ some distorting of Quality.. Bodvar > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:54:47 +0100 > > Subject: Re: [MD] Why isn't the hot stove obvious? > > > > Mary and all who have responded to the "Hot Stove" issue. > > > > > > IMO that "parable" is from a very early stage akin to ZAMM's > > "Leading Edge" example and very useful there, but in LILA where the > > final MOQ is presented becomes an enigma. It was intended as a > > demonstration of how immediate Value is and in ZAMM where SOM > > (called "intellect") was DQ'a sole static fall-out (..and what > > blocks out DQ) in the MOQ, however, jumping from hot places becomes > > the workings of the (biological) autonomous neural system. > > Admittedly, biology is more basic than society and intellect, but > > nevertheless a static level, so Pirsig's obsession with the > > Reality=Quality issue obscures the MOQ. . > > > > An aside: The autonomous neural system is interesting enough. Some > > of you may know the Benjamin Libet experiments that created such a > > furor in the eighties. The signal propagation through nerves isn't > > very fast, it takes (I believe) half a second from toe to brain, > > but stepping on a "hot stove" makes you jump immediately - while the > > signal only is at knee level. So it's not any brain involved, but > > now comes the really weird part. WHEN the signal finally reaches the > > brain it "forwards" the feeling of pain in time so as to match the > > moment you step on the tack. This is really "occult". > > > > Why don't we see "Quality coming"?: > > > >> If all is Quality, why can't we see it coming? What do we lack in > >> order to predict the ultimate outcome or goal of Quality? At the > >> various levels, why do we not universally agree on what the highest > >> Quality outcome would be? Why, for example, has there been recent > >> disagreement here surrounding the best behavior of government? > >> Should we not be able to all equally discern this? Shouldn't > >> recognition of Quality at all levels be as intuitive as the hot > >> stove? > > > > NB. Quality is MOQ's DQ) > > > > Mary speaks much like Phaedrus in ZAMM: "Why don't we > > intellectually recognize Quality"? And the answer is that INTELLECT > > IS SOM where quality is a less-than-real subjective phenomenon. > > Young Phaedrus realized this and presented an alternative MOQ where > > SOM=intellect, but for some reason Pirsig of LILA de-fused this by > > the bland mind-like intellectual level which leaves the MOQ as > > revolutionary as a cup of old tea. > > > > I don't know if Mary is the address here, but just for the gallery: > > > > For the MOQ to be revolutionary SOM must be made its highest static > > level - all of it, every last bit!! If SOM is made one intellectual > > pattern and the MOQ another, the 4th. level becomes SOM's mind - a > > mental container where ideas reside - and SOM goes on unperturbed. > > > > For Pirsig the Reality=Quality issue and proofs thereof was his > > obsession. If that was established he regarded the mission as > > accomplished, the MOQ just one possible ordering of Quality. But the > > Reality=Quality is part and parcel of the MOQ, namely its first > > axiom and axioms can't be proved. The proof is in the result of > > such a quality-ordered universe, and in that respect the MOQ (in its > > true SOL interpretation) is matchless. I haven't found one single > > weak point. > > > > Bodvar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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/ > > _________________________________________________________________ Your > E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222985/direct/01/ 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/
