Hullo Bo,
The essential point that continues to arise between us is as follows
JOHN: It seems that when you speak about the MOQ you are not talking about
the metaphysics, but quality itself. Is this so?
BO: Er....yes, I waver between the two, and am not sure if I want to pick
one lest I be trapped ...
You elaborate
BO: "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..."
I think I follow you. For me this is not a problem. Though the MOQ is itself
a static intellectual pattern, it points to the dynamic without attempting
to define it. This is really no different to all language which points to
something other than itself.
You continue
BO: "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."
I am puzzled. If I read your last sentence correctly, it seems you do not
accept that DQ/SQ is a subset of quality, or put differently, that there is
an over-arching, undefined quality, which is divided into the dynamic and
static categories of the MOQ. (Pirsig talks of the 'first cut of the knife',
which for me implies something prior to be cut.)
I do see it this way, and I suppose agree with Denis in the sense that in no
way does the development of the MOQ equate to the bringing into being of
quality. Rather I see it as a bringing into awareness of how quality, which
has always been present, might operate as both an intellectually credible
basis for a metaphysics, and also offer some guidance as to how we might act
to obtain higher quality outcomes in our world - that is, a moral guide. In
practice I have already given up completely on the second goal, since there
seems no hope of any agreement as to how to separate saviours from
degenerates on the basis of the MOQ. I am also increasingly uninterested in
the first, which seems to be a backwards step rather than the great step
forward it once appeared. But this does not mean the issue is dead - just
that we need to start asking different questions and to use the valid
insights of the MOQ as stepping stones towards a praxis, a way of operating
in the world, that takes quality seriously.
Does this answer your query as to my position?
Regards,
John B
PS Fossicking includes looking for gold and precious stones as well as
fossils. Agate Creek is perhaps the highest quality agate deposit on earth,
and it's only a few hours drive from where I live in north Queensland. We
had a good weekend camping, and got some agate, though not much of great
value, I suspect.
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 - 16:06:21 BST