Hi Platt,
You asked how I've come to think,
> . . . according to the MOQ and
> Pirsig the social and intellectural levels are exclusively human domains. I
> now concede the point, even though I find it logically inconsistent with
> other 'rules' of the MOQ
In July of last year Dan Glover sent me an preliminary copy of Lila's
Child with Pirsig's annotations for my review. It just so happened that
the MF discussion at that time was:
> - Describe 'object' in terms of MOQ; which are its static parts, and which are its dynamic parts ?
> - Describe 'subject' in terms of MOQ; which are its static parts, and which are its dynamic parts ?
> - Describe the relation between subject and object in terms of MOQ, and show why the object-subject split is denied by MOQ.
At that time I was trying to make the case that Wilbur's
internal/external split could be reconciled, might even add to, the MoQ.
But it was clear, at least to me, after reading Pirsig's comments in
Lila's Child, that this was not in line with his thoughts.
What I found incongruent was here was someone who had spend the greater
part of two books and a large part of his life railing against the
errors of the subject/object split only to use this same split as the
crucial determinant between the inorganic/biological and
social/intellectual levels.
In LC when Bo suggests that:
> " No one can tell where matter ends and life begins,
> or where an organism ends and a society starts"
Pirsig responds:
> " In the MOQ all organisms are objective. The exist in the
> material world. All societies are subjective. They exist in the mental
> world. Again the distinction is very sharp.
He then further extends this by saying:
> "This is why it is important not to extend the term "society" beyond the
> dictionary definition: "a group of HUMAN BEINGS broadly distinguished
> from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic
> relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture."
If you combine this with his assertion that each higher level is closer
to Dynamic Quality, is more evolved, is better, a higher level of good,
it appears to me that what you have is a restatement of standard
Judeo-Christian beliefs. Human values on the top two (image of God)
levels, elevated and separated, and better than, all other (created by
God) values. This even though under other provisions of the MOQ all
patterns of value over time supposedly evolve or progress toward ever
higher levels, greater good. If the top two levels are exclusively
reserved for human values this closes the metaphysical door on any
others beings in the universe ever bridging the gap to social or
intellectual levels. Which would appear to directly contradict his
assertion that 'everything' is or tries to better itself over time.
If this is so, it is a type of short sighted, human arrogance that I
find moral repugnant.
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 - 16:02:15 BST