On 16 Aug 2002 at 7:58, John Beasley wrote:
> I was interested in your summary of your ideas, which was
> > "May I just express my "idé fix" again? I see the MOQ as something
> > beyond Intellect and as each higher level has an affinity for the next
> > lower (my enemy's enemy is my friend) it follows that the MOQ will be
> > sympathetic to the Social reality (called "magic" in a derogated sense
> > by Intellect) and long for miracles and wonders."
Hi John.
Did my message really make it to the "billboard"? Must have if you have read
it though.
> It seems that when you speak about the MOQ you are not talking about
> the metaphysics, but quality itself. Is this so?
Er....yes, I waver between the two, and am not sure if I want to pick one lest
I be trapped ...you will perhaps see the reason for my hesitation as our talk
develops.
> My view is that the MOQ is an intellectual structure, therefore at the
> 'intellectual' level. Pirsig argues, (not very convincingly in my
> view), that all static patterns of quality fall into the four levels.
> They are discrete, (not discreet, as in the book), in his view, so I
> find it hard to place a metaphysics anywhere else. But as you are well
> aware, his refusal to define quality puts it in a different category,
> which in terms of the categories in his metaphysics leaves the
> dynamic.
If you say what I think you say it's valid. The DQ/SQ split is a new way of
seeing "things": the dynamic background is an indefinable fluid while the
static levels are well defined (except intellect) but then - which I believe is
your point - the MOQ itself is supposed to be an intellectual pattern which
also leaves the dynamics a STATIC pattern of its own system! A most
peculiar position that Denis Poisson and I discussed unto exhaustion, and
then some, a while back.
Denis maintained that QUALITY had been there all the time - divided in S/O
by SOM and DQ/SQ by the MOQ (in the same sense that religions claim
that they worship the same God under different names) while I held that this
creates a super-quality that even DQ/SQ is a subset of. After all Pirsig
makes a point of showing that quality-value-morals is the groundstuff of
reality. Your saying
> Perhaps it is possible to conceive of a 'super-category' of
> 'what is', which includes both static and dynamic, in which case
> quality comfortably fits there.
... puts you in what camp, if you recognize my way of presenting it? I won't
go further into this metaphysical jungle before I know if this is related to what
you are saying. Your writing is clear enough, but we have a tendency to work
ourselves into idiosyncracies of our own. I have the rest of your message so
no need to repeat that.
Bo
PS:
> I'm off for a few days fossicking at Agate Creek, so must leave it
> there. I'll be interested in your response when I get back.
Is "fossicking" fossil search? There is something called Agate Fossil Beds in
Nebraska, USA is that where you are now?. And if not enough, this very
moment it was said in the news that Australian archaelogists had discovered
fossils of a primeval goose. Its living weight 500 kilograms!
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:19 BST