Hi 3WD, Bo, All:
I admit to having a problem with Bo's explanation of the MOQ as a fifth
level, not because I think it's wrong but that I don't quite "get it." So I
read 3WD's response seeking enlightenment, but am now more
confused than ever. And it's all because of this map-territory, menu-
food, finger-moon business that gets repeated time and again.
Bo:
> > Earlier I have claimed that it is possible to see the MoQ as a 5th
> > level and S/OM as the 4th. From this it follows that each static
> > level has had its era as a "metaphysics" (in the total reality sense),
> > but in turn lost its position to the next development. In this view the
> > 3rd level fits nicely with David B's radical vision of the social level
> > as a hundred thousand years dominant reality of ancient time, still
> > around as Jungian archetypes. The 2nd level immense era as "all there
> > was" - very much still around - is as obvious as the aeon when the first
> > level ruled the earth ...but still the base of existence.
3WD
> I'm sure you recall Pirsig saying:
>
> > "Metaphysics is not reality. Metaphysics names reality." Lila-pp 63
>
> > "Metaphysics is a restaurant where they give you a thirty-thousand page
> > menu and no food." Lila-pp, 63
>
> And rhetorically I ask, "Where does this "thirty-thousand page menu" of
> values reside? Or If we want to find this "thirty-thousand page menu" of
> values that "names reality" where within the MoQ system might we look?
>
> Why the intellectual level, of course.
>
> So your balloon of "metaphysics of the levels" floats along with
> Pirsigs claim that there is a complete and discrete system of laws or
> morals that pertained exclusively to each level. But where it differs, and
> goes astray in my opinion, is that all these "metaphysics of levels" or
> talking about reality, or talking about values, or theories about values,
> are qualities, patterns of value, exclusive to the levels they talk about.
>
> NoNo, Double No. They are two different things.
>
> The values of the levels are values of the levels (food), the talk about
> those values is an intellectural value (menu). And just like this post
> (menus) are fallible, (food) just is. And that's the point the pragmatic
> tradition has been trying to make for nearly 200 years, to little avail I
> might add.
>
> But we have been over this many times before.
Now my question is: "Are not thoughts, symbols, maps, menus, signs,
pointing fingers and the like as "real" as more tangible things such as
talk, banyan trees and moons? I mean here we have Pirsig claiming
that something as ideational as Quality is the primary reality of the
world and yet if I read 3WD right, "Pragmatically speaking, Quality is not
really real." Take it a step further and perhaps I can claim that what
3WD says is not really real because it's just words. And you can take
this post and shove it, too, on the basis that it doesn't exist.
Is the distinction between map and territory that, as 3WD suggests, the
former is "fallible" while the latter just "is." If so, what is fallible about
the Sistine Chapel or Taj Mahal? It's almost as if 3WD is taking the
science position of "if you can't measure it, it isn't real," thereby
eliminating most of the social level and the entire intellectual level in
one fell swoop. And as the intellectual level goes down the tube along
with it goes "truth" (unless polls establish what's true as some have
suggested.)
So here's my question, "How can I tell which of the four levels is real, if
any?" If I know that, perhaps I could apply the same criteria to see if
Bo's fifth level is also real.
Platt
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 - 16:01:51 BST