Mon, 14 Sep Glen Dickey wrote:
> > Doug Renselle wrote:"Does MoQ value its own extension?"
> Lila:"One seeks instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of
> things with the knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future
> this explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until
> something better comes along."
> I was under the impression that experiential learning/unlearning
> was a basic tenet of MoQ. Without Empirical learning
> and the ability to change the MoQ based on new experiences,
> the MoQ would constitute constitute a kind of mystical belief
> system wouldn't it? That MoQ holds no absolute "Truth", and
> recognizes that other values systems may possess
> varying degrees of utility, in no way reduces the uniqueness of
> MoQ's scope and depth. I would hope a group smart
> enough to sincerely care about MoQ would have a healthy tolerance
> for the idiotic annoying ideas that other people come
> up. Generally these ideas are the most annoying when they're better
> than your own. It just burns me up. 8]
Glen Dickey
Welcome to the MOQ discussion. I feel a little guilty as I was the one
who attacked Doug's tables (which can be seen at the "Forum")
something that resulted in his query to Pirsig and P's reply.
The openness argument can easily be carried into the absurd..and well
beyond. Any such system has its axioms that can't be changed without
crashing the whole thing. The grander the system the more it allows
for and as the MOQ is about the grandest there is, it is very
flexible, but it has its limits - can't avoid the Gödel axiom.
It is of course possible to ..change the MoQ...but then it is no
longer the MOQ and should be presented under a different name (as
Pirsig says), but I felt that Renselle did not want that and yet
introduced an unnecessary complication that endangered the (beauty of)
the original idea. If anyone should look into his tables and believe
that this was the MOQ they would leave as fast as possible.
But has there been many "annoying" ideas"? Phew! Right now Horse has
launched one about computers (virus and Internet) as a 5th level, and
myself (based on Platt Holden's suggestion) one of the Quality idea
itself as Dynamic Quality's attempt to.....in your words ... "seek
freedom from static patterns". I agree with you that it (DQ seeking
freedom) is the weirdest (and best) idea and the stroke of Pirsig's
genius that makes the MOQ so unique, and of which I know no
parallel.
Bodvar
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:33 BST