Dear 3WD,
You wrote 13/11 15:24 -0600:
"While it's clear that Pirsig intends that the levels as a whole
are all inclusive, not continuous, but discrete, nowhere can I
find that further division of the levels into sublevels would
violate its basic tenents."
Sublevels wouldn't violate the basic tenets of Pirsig's MoQ. In
my view they lead to confusion however between sub-levels and
levels. Unlike Wilber I don't think that "'levels' can be as few
or as many as the thinker can
find qualities to differentiate them" (your words 13/11
11:00 -0600). I think 'levels' can be only as few or as many as
the thinker can find distinguishable types of static latching to
differentiate them. For subdivision of levels I prefer -in order
to prevent confusion- to just stay with the idea that a level
contains patterns of values that can be ranked from lower to
higher quality.
You can of course distinguish groups of patterns of values inside
a level if you find a criterion that suggests that the levels
quality of these group are separate by a certain minimum amount.
As you write this way of grouping patterns of value (unlike the
division in levels) "becomes a matter of preference and utility".
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 - 16:01:40 BST