Good morning Bo, and Squad,
Bodvar Skutvik wrote:
>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. ...
I agree that if Pirsig's MoQ is twisted out of recognition, it will no
longer be MoQ. On the other hand, I think it would we wrong to hang on
to his every word as dogma. Bo picked the "4-levels" as something
crucial to retain. I would pick the "Quality" idea as a holy cow. I know
that Pirsig himself wrote that he considers Lila the more important of
his two books, but personally I attach greater importance to ZAMM, where
the Q-based metaphysics is first conceived. I think that without ZAMM
preceding, Lila would be of little value. As it is, Lila is a charming
clarification of how the Q idea can be applied as a rational analytical
system, of which the 4-level MoQ is a good example. I think that good
alternative structures might be possible, but agree with Bo that we
should avoid unnecessary complication.
Jonathan
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