> [Arlo] > And again I ask, what type of pattern of values is the "inorganic > level" > itself? Do you think it is an inorganic, biological, social or > intellectual > pattern of value? Or some other kind of pattern of value? > > Simply repeating "its a pattern of values" is a cop-out, since I know > its a > pattern of values, since that is in my question. You'd have no trouble > saying a > "rock" is an "inorganic pattern of values", would you? Or an "amoeba" > is a > "biological pattern of values"? > > So which type of value pattern, according to Pirsig's metaphysics, is > the > "inorganic level" itself? Inorganic? Biological? Social? Intellectual? > Other?? > >
[Mary replies] I fully understand that you want me to say the levels are Intellectual Patterns of Value. As discussed, of course they are! I am not intending to be insulting, but feel compelled to say that this is the kindergarten understanding of the MoQ. It is the way we all first come to know it; and, as we've all been saying in various ways again and again, it is an Intellectual 'description' of the MoQ-as-concept - not to be confused with Quality itself. It is what Marsha means when she says the MoQ becomes a POV of the Intellectual Level when it is written, discussed, and described. It is the same casual 'blasphemy' we all commit whenever we refer to DQ using language. That is all the Intellectual Level is capable of. You, DMB, and others seem to think you will have won some sort of victory by getting those of us who see the Intellectual Level as SOM to say the levels are intellectual patterns. Well, sure. OK. If it makes you feel good, then there is certainly that level of value in it. Enjoy! But it's a war you truthfully do not want to win, since to win is to misunderstand the very real power the MoQ offers for insight. The freedom from SOM. The situation is that though we all speak and write about the MoQ in SOM terms, we do so only because we have no other way to communicate - and that is not the same as saying the MoQ is nothing more than an intellectual concept. To say that is to misunderstand the deeper import. Devalue it. In fact, 'devalue' is the perfect word since that's exactly the nature of SOM where the world is viewed as subjects and objects first and only secondarily having value, quality or morality as an attribute. Now the concept of DQ is so obviously SOM-foreign that there is less danger of misunderstanding DQ to be a subject or an object. That is clear, and rarely do you see people here objecting to sentences that refer to DQ nor do you hear people insisting we define it. But the levels are not nearly so clearly understood as patterns of value rather than erroneously as collections of similar things. The difference is huge and apparently there is no common agreement on this point. That's why, for me it's important to be clear when speaking about the levels to emphasize their nature as patterns-of-value and not as collections of like things. So, to properly answer your question about what level the definition of a level resides on, the correct answer is that the 'definition' resides at the Intellectual Level. However, to answer the more important question of what a level _is_ in MoQ terms, is to say it is a collection of patterns of Quality, Values, Morals which agree; or, as Pirsig puts it, a collection of Dynamic increments which have latched. [Lila pp 97] in a value-centered explanation of evolution they are close to the Dynamic process itself, pulling the pattern of life forward to greater levels of versatility and freedom. Sometimes a Dynamic increment goes forward but can find no latching mechanism and so fails and slips back to a previous latched position. Whole species and cultures get lost this way. Sometimes a static pattern becomes so powerful it prohibits any Dynamic moves forward. In both cases the evolutionary process is halted for a while. But when it's not halted the result has been an increase in power to control hostile forces or an increase in versatility or both. The increase in versatility is directed toward Dynamic Quality. The increase in power to control hostile forces is directed toward static quality. Without Dynamic Quality the organism cannot grow. Without static quality the organism cannot last. Both are needed. Best, Mary 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/md/archives.html
