Roger and David,
Thanks! I've been wrestling with the levels for months now and just when I
thought I had nailed it, you two come up with some great posts.
David: "The question seems to set up a contest between immediate sensory
awareness and a well trained intellect."
No, we need knowledge to organize our sensory awareness and could not let go even
if we tried.. Take watching a movie. One may let go of "I" and become
completley immersed "in the moment" While immersed in a good movie, one can
become in state of sensitivity that there is no notion of "I". To coin
Krishnamurti "the observer becomes the observed". Still the intellects knowledge
of language, the movie's plot, the ability to understand the humour and irony is
always there.
Roger: "In other words, he is all for intellectual quality AND open mindedness,
but I suspect he thinks the levels are NOT INTELLECTUAL QUALITY."
Yes, that sums it up better.
The statement "reality is made of patterns" gets us out of many metaphysical
problems. It improves on old ways of thinking. If there was no SOM, however, and
people relied on their experiences for knowledge, the statement does not give any
real implications for our behavior.
That is where the levels are supposed to come in (??) but I still see no
implications!!
Roger said that as business exec he observed intellectual and social levels
clashing all the time. I might not have the experience (I am 27 years old) but I
can relate in the two years I worked in the financial department of GM (light
armoured vehicle division). There was much fear. Everyone was fighting to
impress those with power and it seemed everyone was encouraged to intimidate those
below them.
As Roger, I could organize this experience into social/intellectual quality. I
would equate the need for profit and efficiency with intellectual quality (truth)
and the need to impress with social quality. The organization, when possible,
should have sacrificed social quality for more intellectual quality. Agreed?
There is a constant battle between fitting in (getting promotions, etc.) and the
goals of the organization. People should have been less selfish.
I now shed some new information on the topic. My new job is incredible. Amoung
many things, my managers bonus depends upon how I -- a subordinate -- rate her,
there is a gym with yoga classes at lunch, and an independent ombudsperson for
those treated unfairly! At this job there is more cooperation, efficiency,
creativitity, profitability, and I feel *more* social quality. With the new
information and ideas I go back to my GM experince and twist the MOQ again. Not
less, but *more* social quality was needed. People needed to be more comfortable
with each other! People should have been allowed to be "selfish" and given the
things that would have made them more satisified.
In the above two paragraphs look what I did. I felt something to be wrong and I
applied the MOQ to *explain* it. At both points in time, application of the MOQ
did nothing to change my views. But a new experience changed my application of
the MOQ! The MOQ gives one overconfidence of his/her grasp on reality. It is
like the psyschological ink blot test. One is asked what a blot of ink represents
and the person reveals what is on his/her mind!
To summarize, the MOQ is brilliant and makes sense, but at the same time it does
nothing! I'm trying to answer why!!! It is driving me nuts! The MOQ does
justify embracing experience, but I have previously learned that through Eastern
philosophy. If the MOQ is so *thought* provoking, please, please give a good
hypothetical example to the more concise question...
"Who is the better judge of a moral question, an open-minded, sensitive
person or one who is well versed in the MOQ?"
Please assume that that the MOQ unversed person is slightly *more* sensitive to
experience. I may have confused you before, but this could mean the person knows
more "facts". Is it hypothetically possible that the versed person could win?
If not, shouldn't Pirsig have focussed much more of his time inspiring us to
expand our perceptions, expanding our listening skills, letting go of our needs
for certain conclusions, and letting go of our needs to think in a certain way.
To really observe quality a mind must be free. Isn't observing our own minds and
thoughts much, much, more valuable than trying to fit reality into levels? Would
not it be better to think, "hmmm.. the levels are intersting and I'll keep them in
mind" and consciously let go of them? Other than arguing against a SOM person,
when would they ever become relevant?
"Pirsig said in both books that the first cut is the most important." Agreed.
But what value / fundamental difference is there to the second cut?
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:52 BST