Horse -
Yes, I can form a lucid argument without being insulting. However, from past
exchanges with Platt I've found that he's already made up his mind; and he
simply debates to enforce his prejudices and not consider other view points -
hence the brevity of my statment. The intention with my post was not to
insult.
You asked me to form an argument for my position, supported by MOQ. Ok, here
it is. The part of Platt's statement which has low quality (as least to me)
is the underlying tone of division, of separateness, between people and
things. Or, to phrase it more mildly, the low value being placed on caring
for another human being. If I remember correctly Platt stated that it was a
static function on the social level; intellectual quality having more value
according to MOQ. I would argue that caring for someone or something else -
and I mean genuinely caring for something, deep down, in your guts - is a
manifestation of dynamic quality. It is this caring, or attraction, or love;
which drives evolution itself. True caring transcends all static levels and
permeates the dynamic. Just like cells "care" for one another and form
organisms. To say that Albert Einstein is more valuable than Mother Theresa
ignores the dynamic quality in seeing the underlying unity of all life.
Something I think Mother Theresa had a wealth of. (I would agree with Platt
that on a strictly static scale Einstein was certainly more valuable - via
intellect - than M.T. was - via social quality, development). For me it all
goes to the last line of Lila where Pirsig writes:
Good as a noun rather than as an adjective is all the
MOQ is about. Of course, the ultimate Quality isn't a noun
or an adjective or anything else definable, but if you had
to reduce the whole MOQ to a single sentence,
that would be it.
"Good as a noun..." I see tremendous power and implications in this
statment. In my own concrete way I read that as: 'Good as a person, place,
and/or thing.' Or - that we're all made of the same stuff. This might seem
a stretch, but is it? Good as a noun. My read of MOQ - it's most basic,
principal - is that fundamentally, we are all the same. Do we all think the
same? No. Do we all act the same? No. Do we all feel the same? No. I
would argue that these differences are how each individual interprets the
world through the different static layers. But when you strip these layers
away we share a Good that transcends our static forms.
Jack
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
