Hi Elliot:
>
> Platt said:
> > Since the MOQ hierarchy is his baby, to deny what he
> > says about it seems futile. A definition of the social level other than
> > that given by Pirsig may be OK in another metaphysics, but it wouldn't
> > be the MOQ.
>
> Elliot:
> Im sorry, i have to dissagree entirely. The MoQ is Pirsig's baby, but its
> has been left here with us to let it develop. Pirsig has chosen to stay
> away from the discussion in general inorder that his ideas may develop into
> something greater. If Pirsig says something outright inconsistant or
> something that violates what we percieve to be Quality, then the issue must
> be disscussed and resolved, resolved for individuals atleast. There is no
> chance for the growth of the MoQ if we ignore problems we percieve with the
> root structure. Do Pirsig a favor and be loyal to Qulaity and not
> doctrine.
By all means. Feel free to change the MOQ any way you think would
make it better. "Develop" the inorganic to include a lower quantum
level. Add a level above the intellectual that "sees" the intellectual level,
like Wilber's "Witness." Even add a level of art (as I have proposed). My
only point was Pirsig has answered those who want to expand the
social level to include cells, ants and dolphins and said, "No. That is
not what I mean by the social level in the MOQ." So I conclude that if
you say otherwise, you are proposing something different than Pirsig's
MOQ. Which is fine. But difference is no guarantee of "growth." Nor is
growth, per se, always a good thing.
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 - 16:02:15 BST