Jonathan
You asked
> Wouldn't it would be simpler to say that intellect=the MoQ?
> Please don't dismiss this provocation as a mere tease. I'd like to see a
> serious answer.
I also missed this memory part,
> "Static quality, the moral force of the priests, emerges in the wake of Dynamic > Quality. It is old and complex. It always contains a component of memory." > Lila pg. 133.
Seriously,even though I realize Pirsig equates quality to value, "the
laws of values" to me rings truer than "the laws of quality" or
intellect='s the MoQ. This circles back around to my disagreement with
Bo in the first place. It is my contention that the intellectual level
contains, or is (including memory, individual and collective in many
forms from "minds" to books) many different patterns of intellectual
value that seek to be and in varying degrees all ARE "the laws of
values" (this would include Bo's claim that S/OM is the MoQ's
intellectual level). Pirsig say as much here:
> Within a Metaphysics of Quality, science is a set of static intellectual patterns > describing this reality, but the patterns are not the reality they describe. Pirsig, > Robert M., Lila. An inquiry into morals. New York (Bantam Books) 1991, 103
Pirsig claims the MoQ, not science, should be top dog but clearly the
MoQ currently is not even in contention. So in this sense the MoQ
contains itself and all other static intellectual patterns existing in
parallel with others, but it is not yet dominating. And only if meets
"the test of true is good" better than the others will it do so. And
something better can come along and knock it out of the box even if it does.
3WD
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