Hi Bo,
Quick answer since you haven't finished answering my post...
>Thanks Denis for taking such trouble to address these subtle
>points of the MoQ. I think we have reached a point of understanding.
Well, I certainly hope so !
>Provided I understand you properly the fact that the world is part of
>the MoQ poses no problem, as said that goes for all all-
>encompassing systems which in turn have made everything part of
>itself and reshaped the past and the future.
Hum, this I confess I do not really understand. If by "the world" you mean
the "known world", the phenomenal world (as opposed to the noumenal one), I
agree. If by "the world" you mean Quality/Reality, then I must disagree.
This is hardly necessary given the following paragraph (where we are in
TOTAL agreement), but please try to be precise when using non-MOQite terms.
>If we consider the
>stone-agers they had an explanation for the origin and destiny of
>everything, but with the shift to monotheism, a new explanation
>took over and changed the world into a creation of God. Finally the
>SOM-inspired scientific explanation changed the word into a purely
>chance thing, but no one said that this was "a ridiculous claim"
>since modern science came into being quite recently.
Yes, but the scientists didn't say the world was a part of science. Good old
S/O... :)
>And if the
>MoQ claims that everything is a value evolution it poses no logic
>violation ....it's always a question of a more credible explanation.
This part seems to indicate that we are in agreement. From the MOQ mystic
point of view, the metaphysical world has changed several time over in the
history of Man. From the MOQ metaphysical point of view, though, it's always
been made of patterns of value. The MOQ is great for a little
"double-think", no ? :o)
>
>But the MoQ as an intellectual pattern would be the same as a
>believer of a religion said that God came to be in the (last chapter)
>of the Bible, which is exactly what the sceptics claim.
Took me some time to get this one, but YES, that's exactly it ! At the
metaphysical level, you're "trapped inside" the MOQ where the levels have
always existed, where everything is *really* made of patterns of value, etc.
For you the notions of DQ and SQ are perennial. They shape your world.
That's why I stress the importance of Pirsig's original mystic insight : the
MOQ is a set of *beliefs*, nothing else. Their value is obvious, but not
ultimate. That insight is the door leading out, and thus the "eraser" and
Dynamism of the MOQ.
What is strange is that we think from such opposite directions that, at
times, I can hardly understand how you could come to such conclusions ! The
Intellect is a strange place... :)
>OK, you say:
>
>> the MOQ isn't a part of *itself* but
>> of the intellectual level, which is a part of Static Quality, itself
>> a part of Quality. So, the MOQ isn't "a part of itself"
>
>You distinguish between the MoQ and Quality (DQ?) IOW that
>Quality was before Robert Pirsig and merely inspired him to write
>the MoQ? Much like God inspiring the prophets to write the
>respective Scriptures?.
YES !!! :-D
[About the distinction between Quality and DQ, I direct you to my post in
the thread "Things and patterns" of the 12th Nov. We can discuss it there
(in the "Things and patterns" thread, I mean), if you want.]
>Well, I may be forced to reconsider, we
>have arrived at the same position from different directions it seems.
Well, it's good to know we've (finally!) arrived at the crossroad. :)
I'm waiting for the rest !
Denis
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:38 BST