Hey Bo and John,
Bo, first. Bo, I think you give more credence to MOQ
than what Pirsig intended. And you are unfair to John
in his understanding of MOQ. John, I think you have to
be more clear in your presentation of Wilber. As
Russell said, "In the end it all tastes like chicken."
You should be more clear, as equating Quality with
Consciousness was a little lazy and a lot explosive.
MOQ is Q-intellect, and Pirsig claims it is a better
metaphysics than SOM. End of story. I think you - BO
-understand this. It is NOT another "level", the 5th
level. Now, YOU may think it is a 5th level and if YOU
think that you should make it clear and don't tell
John he is wrong for not understanding Bo's MOQ.
Please use something like BMOQ instead so as not to
confuse Pirsig's MOQ. Pirsig's MOQ has 4 levels. (A
BMOQ 5th level would be Wilber's autonomous
individual, or the Aquarian transpersonal individual,
IMHO).
>So, your style and abilities don't lack, but in spite
>of that you never got the gist the MoQ.....in my
>opinion. The Bard talks about a different ways to
>Quality, but if this doesn't include the MoQ it
>raises serious problems.
That's wrong. Pirsig invented the MOQ BECAUSE he
wanted to show how Americans are both European and
Indian, or respectively orderly and free spirited.
That was the reason for inventing it, but it took on a
whole other life of it's own: a moral system role. You
can throw away MOQ at anytime REALLY if you receive
the purpose of the MOQ: get you to see the conflicting
natures in your soul : orderliness and freedom. That's
the whole point of MOQ and it is NOT essential to
Quality. Now BMOQ may be different...
>until one starts examining things (from a SOM pov
>that is) closely and find that reality is a CONSTRUCT
>OF OUR MIND, the very insight of P. of ZAMM that lead
>to the Quality insight.
That insight is Descartes actually, at least in the
Western tradition. ZAMM's goal was to reconcile the
classical and romantic notions of the self into one
system: Quality. He says that explicitly in LILA. He
says he is a son of American philosophy. Now Bo may
have understood this by reading Pirsig, but then again
that is Bo's history. Pirsig is NOT original here.
>The MoQ says that DQ is indefinable, but about the
>static layers much can be said.
Wrong again. Quality is indefinable. DQ is, to an
extent because DQ is part of MOQ. DQ can't be made
into a "law" which would be static, but it can be
defined as it is part of MOQ.
> But I go beyond you when I assert that language is
> not mired in
> objectivity, but is actually able to transcend it,
>provided there is
> shared experience between those using the language.
>>Right, this is the first part of the Q insight:
>>Language is not mired in objectivity
Bo, you lose me here. John, I would say your
description is in line with Late Wittgenstein.
Language has an objectifying nature and a
non-objectifying nature.
> How does one comprehend the MOQ, which
> purports not to be SOM bound.
>>If SOM is a Q-level - Intellect - the MoQ must
>>somehow be a 5th level of it's own system and the
>>relationship with its parent the same as between all
>>other levels.
MOQ is a better metaphysics, at least that is what
Pirsig claims. Bo's MOQ (BMOQ) is another story.
So define your terms gentlemen. Let the fight begin
again.
Angus
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
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