Hi Dan and Arlo, I appreciate the discussion as it has gone so far in this thread. If I may, I would like to contribute.
In a way, this conversation seems to be asking for a framework in which MoQ can be discussed, grown, and evolve. The basic questions are in the areas of what parts of MoQ need to remain as fundamental principles, and what can be added to further its purpose. A useful analogy (and I hope the thread is not sidelined as a result) may be the debate between strict constitutionalists and the more radical interpreters of the constitution. In either case, some form of interpretation is necessary, however one side seems to stick to the actual wording of the constitution whereas the other wants to provide meaning which is right for the present. Both sides are typically entrenched and compromise is difficult. We have seen, however, that the constitution does evolve (amendments and such). Coming back to MoQ. There are those who are strict literalists (for lack of a better word), and there are those who branch out into what seem to be irrelevant tangents. So, the framework in which MoQ can be grown is an important area for agreement. I remember reading an interview with Pirsig many years ago (posted on the MoQ site, I believe) in which Pirsig stated that MoQ is waiting for the next big thinker to carry it along. Now, we can wait for such a prophet, or we can inch along as we see best, without compromising the subject. The problem I have with the strict literal interpretation is that it seems contrary to the format in which MoQ was presented; that is Lila and the other associated works by Pirsig. In my opinion, the examples brought in by such literature were meant to provide an understanding of Quality without necessarily defining it. The illustration of levels, for example, are more a form of analogy than an established dictate. One can view Quality as existing in levels if it provides meaning. I believe Pirsig would say that while this type of structuring can provide meaning, it is not necessary. In another interview with Pirsig from about 5 years ago, Pirsig stated that he was able to get to the same place, in terms of sensing Quality, using Zen techniques. Such techniques to not require levels. It is possible that we are dealing more with a perennial form of philosophy which we are trying to modernize and disseminate in this century. As such, there are many resources with which to do that. I do not believe that MoQ is unique, but is produced by the human mind. The shared structure of the human mind reveals its potential in many similar ways. Pirsig himself draws analogies from Taoism, Zen, Hinduism, sophistry, more modern forms of philosophy, as well as a number of areas not considered to lie within the discipline of metaphysics. It is important to provide a web of understanding. The shape of the web must be peculiar to MoQ, but the strands forming the web can be varied. Cheers, Mark > > > > 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
