The MoQ says this. Static Quality is cumulative. Matter was valued. All else proceeds from there.
Once you had mass, complex molecules were valued over the disorganzed. Once you had complex molecules, life was valued over the inorganic. Once you had life, social interaction was valued over aloneness. Once you had social stability, intellectual pursuits were possible. It's all good or it's all evil. These terms are irrelevant. It's all just cumulative Quality, but it's only Quality because it supports what came before. Quality is relative. One thing leads to another. We view something to be of Quality only because of what has latched before. Doesn't make it good. Doesn't make it bad. If the first latch had been something other than time or mass, we would all be talking about other things. Static Quality is about supporting the latches. Would entities on another planet value William James? I doubt it. Pirsig knows this. Best, Mary On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 6:32 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Andre said to Marsha; > I apologize immediately Marsha because I do think you are genuinely upset > but, for goodness sake let your experience inform your theory with > consistency. Static patterns as ever-changing makes them frivolous and > illusory. This may have been the conviction of the Indian professor at > Benares University answering Phaedrus' query about the reality of Hiroshima > and Nagasaki but Pirsig's MOQ is of a different quality. > > > dmb says: > Yes, it's only normal to feel bad for northeastern Japan and there's no crime > in saying so out loud either. > > But if desire is an ego-building illusion and static patterns are > ever-changing, then what does that say about the desire of the Japanese quake > victims to live? What does that say about the static patterns that are > melting down in the cores of those reactors? Is that just an illusion? Are > the coastal residents just ego maniacs because they desire food, water and a > warm place to sleep tonight? Is the loss of 10,000 lives (so far) just an > illusion. Is it just a form of absolutism if we insist these events cannot > rightly be interpreted as a good thing? > > It's bad enough that Marsha's picture of the MOQ is predicated on a whole > bunch of mixed up definitions and confused ideas, but the otherworldly and > misanthropic nature of this vision makes it even worse. I think this vacuous > nihilism is approximately the opposite the of MOQ. > > > > > > > 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 > 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
