Hi Foci 18 Jan. Valence wrote:
> Right. If the point of the MoQ is to redescribe everything as a > species of value then Pirsig got it plain backwards. What it should > say is: "Phenomena are values." More to the point: 'Phenomena' are > respectively: tactile values, visual values, auditory values, > olfactory values, and (umm...) flavoritive(?) values. I have been reluctant to enter this topic as it has its origin in the SODAV paper - one that I don't have good vibes about. No criticism of Rick for posting it or of those electing it. Anyway I feel with Rick in his comment above (to Matt) about it sounding backwards and should have said .....phenomena are values" ...even adding that all existence IS is sensing of value. How could the inorganic level produce the biological one (or for that matter: the inorganic world come to pass) if the patterns of the respective planes didn't sense the Quality pull, The snag of it all is that the human being is treated as in SOM: a body with sense organs whose inputs are evaluated by a mind. This is qualitywise wrong, there is no fifth or sixth biological sensory perception of value. The static layers of which we consist are the "sensing" ...phew everything tend to become in quotation marks, bracketed or italicized . The MOQ not only redescribes: It writes it in a new language that must be learned. But there was no way that Pirsig could reach the Brussels' conference audience by starting with the MOQ fundamentals? I hear the rumbling from Matt's "pragmatic" machinery about the inorganic level not being the starting point .... things start in the mind ...etc. OK, Matt behaves so why start provoking him? ;-) My conclusion is that the answer is "NO" to the actual question. Sincerely Bo MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/ MF Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
