Hi Denis,
That was a very good post, and it reminded me of a place I once was. A
place without any metaphysics, pure dynamic quality, with nothing to latch
on to. I'm not saying that is where you are, although I'm sure all of us
here have been there at one point, after the fall of SOM so to speak. It
just reminded me of that place. I agree with you about the map and the pond.
About drawing lines in the sand and them not representing anything. Maybe
it's a need in us to make the whole world into a logically consistent
air-tight metaphysics. Even to have it eventually be replaced by something
better. Exploring the edges of the MOQ and make sure it's sealed.
I see your logic in keeping it open, giving it room for interpretation, but
I also feel the need to close it, and make it self contained. SOM is a self
contained metaphysics, yet, we are out of it, so it proves that even a self
contained metaphysics can be escaped from. It does well for those within it
too, keeping the world safe and contained, where everything is understood
and explained, but it also allows for those with the will to do so to
discover other new ideas undisturbed (like us). Because all we are doing is
talking about philosophy, something well charted and understood within SOM,
we are not outside the system, although we really are.
>And SOLAQI is simply, as my last post indicated, Absolute Truth in
disguise. Worse than that, it is dogma in
>disguise. The Word of Quality, which is identical with "the Word of God".
It
>is low-quality because totally devoid of any Dynamic element.
So in essence, our debate comes down to Static vs Dynamic quality. Do we
close The MOQ, taking it up a full latch and saying that The MOQ is a level
onto itself? Or do we leave it open thus letting dynamic quality run the
whole thing? Me asking this question could be it's own answer. It's a
question that even the MOQ has no answer to. Which is better, Static or
Dynamic quality? There's always a trade off. Maybe that's why Pirsig left it
open, either he didn't think it should be closed, was too afraid to close
the loop, or he didn't think he should make that unilateral decision (and is
secretly monitoring this forum). There's safety in latches, but there's
something else about not latching. Maybe it should be left as a matter of
personal choice, a reflection of the quality within.
>"Just state what you have to say. We'll decide if it's better or not,
>without resorting to any kind of justification at all." And you're going
to
>tell me you cannot smell the dogma, here ? Just read what you've written :
>"if quality were accepted as true".
>IOW, join the new Absolute ! It looks a bit like good old Absolute Truth,
>but it's far easier to make the bitch work for you, this time ! You don't
>even need to justify yourself !
But there is a justification system, and that's the whole point of the MOQ,
it encompasses all previous systems, the levels as they are defined, the
quality on each level, the heigharchy of the levels, and in the end, the
quality factor itself. That factor itself is what worries you, and I see
your point. There is no definition of quality, there are only measurements
of it.
>"Just state what you have to say. We'll decide if it's better or not,
>without resorting to any kind of justification at all."
But quality does exist, we both agree on that, so the problem is an
implementation problem rather than a problem with the metaphysics itself.
The low quality situation is when the quality cannot be seen. Many things
are submitted to a "panel of judges" to determine quality, and really that's
the best measurement you are going to get. Maybe with a clear acceptance of
quality and an understanding of the MOQ, more minds would be open to new
possibilities in quality, and the judges will have a clearer picture.
Implementation is a huge issue, maintaining a clear picture of undefinable
quality is next to impossible.
I just read your post again, and it made me think about the lack of a
metaphysics again. I realize now why you don't want to make it self
contained. A lack of Metaphysics is THE Metaphysics, and closing the MOQ
could just be making another SOM. It is a newer and better SOM though, so
maybe it is a good idea to move up the latch. People will be aware of the
difficulties of implementation, the "word of quality" can never be defined.
The low quality dogma of the social level is very much included in the MOQ.
I feel like Plato or something, trying to figure out packaging of a
metaphysics. I'm feeling very weird now so I'll continue this later. I'll
respond to more of your specific points as well about level definition
although I have the impression that it's a logical cascade effect depending
upon the desired outcome of a closed or open metaphysics.
Rob
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 - 16:01:41 BST