Hello Bo. >> You make two interesting and significant statements; "Quality is the >> DQ of the MOQ" and "the misunderstanding of a QUALITY outside the >> DQ/SQ persists." > > Thanks for calling it "interesting and significant". If you agree I'm > not sure. The value of agreement is highly overrated, in my opinion, especially when it comes to esoteric concepts like Pirsig's Quality and his Metaphysics of Quality. Better to get to know one another first. Then we can see if we agree or not. Starting with esoteric concepts demands too much assuming. And it attributes to the concept a reality it may not deserve. >> I see in your statements, especially the second, a confirmation that >> no consensus exists among MOQ advocates on a precise delineation of >> the MOQ. > > Was it you who "complained" about there being no place where > one would find MOQ clearly outlined? Anyway, there are the > books, but as such goes they are ambiguous. I said I had a problem with the MOQ and that there is no clear and concise delineation of it. >> A search of "quality is" in Pirsig's first book identified most of the >> following. I'll take these to be a very good delineation of what >> Quality is. > >> Quality is a characteristic of thought and statement that is >> recognized by a nonthinking process. Because definitions are a >> product of rigid, formal thinking, quality cannot be defined. > > No disagreement about Quality from a MOQ view (I subscribe to > that) but many, including Pirsig, want Quality to be recognized > from the intellectual level, i.e. that it IS an intellectual pattern. I don't understand. The recognition of Quality is Quality? > Okay, my argument looks circular, but - in retrospect - before the > MOQ while intellect was SOM (IMO), quality was something > insignificant, subjective something. It was only after the MOQ we > were able to see reality as a Quality evolution. And thus the power of concepts to lead us to different ways of approaching reality. But there is more involved than the simple intellectual recognition of a concept. The concept only leads to the threshhold. Something else is responsible for the awareness that lies beyond the threshhold. And it seems to me that this is what Pirsig means by the Quality event and Dynamic Quality. > Instead we have all these logic loops and bends about a > QUALITY outside the MOQ and that SOM is really a quality > metaphysics (a S/O division of Quality). Admittedly, intellect is a > static level, but in that capacity no longer SOM. No, intellect is as > blind to the overall Quality context as the rest of the levels, yes, > intellect is particularly blind because there is a level relationship > between intellect and the MOQ and like all levels intellect resists > being reduced, it wants the MOQ to be another intellectual theory > The MOQ is not Quality or Dyamic Quality, imo. It is a mere roadmap of them.
Kevin --------------------------------- Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. 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/
