Hello everyone
Dave Buchanan wrote:
>All moqers: I'm not sure if "human nature" is the right thread name.
>What I really want to discuss is the explanatory power of the MOQ. There
>are so many powerful and relevant quotes in the posts lately. I hope we
>can gather them up and work it out before they fade into memory, before
>we lose the momentum.
>
>Ever have that feeling of wanting to say everything at once so much that
>you can say nothing at all. Try to start at the begining or just dive
>into the middle somewhere. OK, just one brick at a time.
>
>That's it! Pirsig's explainations have appeared to some as contradictory
>because he can't say everything at once and there are no easy rules.
>There are only four levels of static patterns and five moral codes, but
>we "calculate" the morality using all of these nine elements in a single
>complex equation. Sometimes its simpler than that. Patients and germs
>figure easily. The civil war is another matter entirely.
>
>Pirsig's statements on the topic should be seen as strands in a web or
>cable, each once adding strength and detail to the larger effort. I
>think his quotes have to be seen as many examples of how these
>level-code calculations work. He refers to well known historical events
>and re-invisions them thru MOQ eyes. Naturally, the levels and codes
>need to be properly understood AS WELL AS the situation under scrutiny.
>Its as if we have the right formula, but we also have to be sure the
>numbers we plug into it are also accurate. Am I saying anything you
>don't already know?
Hi David
I believe that we must take any observation as a complete and unitary
system... as the Quality Event, in other words. The Quality Event is the
individual nowness we each experience as we move thru life.
David:
>
>ROGER recently said, "It is usually a HUGE mistake to try to equate any
>THING or behavior to a level" I disagree 100%. I think Pirsig gives us
>the levels (and codes) for a reason. Lila HB page 100 "The MOQ provides
>a better set of coordinates with which to interpet the world than does
>SOM because it is more inclusive." I repeat, "with which to interpet
>the world". That's the whole idea. That's what makes it pragmatically
>useful. (Redundancy for dramatic effect)
Glove:
I agree with Roger on this. Yes, the MOQ gives us a better set of
coordinates for interpreting the world, but it also entails learning an
entirely new framework; one in which intellectual value comes before
external
value... a framework in which we are unable to say with certainty that there
is, or is not, an external reality independent of our perception of reality.
>Dave:
>
>ROGER also says, "Even a subatomic particle is as much an intellectal
>pattern as an inorganic one." I think this claim is confusing and not
>true. We have intellectual patterns about subatomic structures in both
>SOM and MOQ terms, but that ought not be confused with actual "thing" we
>refer to. Such thinking would even make the patient/germ debate too
>difficult to manage.
Glove:
I am not sure that the sub-atomic realm can be conceptualized at all. The
framework of complementarity seems to work well in explaining what occurs in
the atomic system but all efforts at building a conceptual model have
failed. Classical theory works, but only if it is constricted in very
specific ways to make it work. It has become apparent that classical theory
grows out of quantum theory and not visa versa, as is the normal way of
looking at this problem. Classical theory only works in very special
circumstances of quantum theory. Quantum theory doesn't refer to an
independent "thing" that really exists... it refers to a high Quality
interpretation of reality. The quantum observation and the Quality Event are
the same.
>
>Sort of parenthetically, I have to say that Roger, Glove and others have
>been working intelligently and sincerely to explain ideas like the one
>above. And in return I've made real efforts to see what they're getting
>at, but I just don't think it works. It could be that they are correct,
>but that it is impossible to articulate in any meaningful way. (I guess
>I'm coming back to the conclusion that its some kind of solipsism.) In
>any case, this view is lost on me.
Glove:
The more I ponder this, the more it seems to me that solipsism is only a
product of classical subject-object divisionary thinking. If we accept the
new
framework that the MOQ proposes we have to move away from classical
thinking, which is incredibly difficult to do, but nonetheless doable. It
requires viewing reality in a whole different fashion. Bridges must be
built, but not bridges that trap us in subject-object thinking as intellect,
but rather as social values which can be overcome by intellect. Efforts to
understand the MOQ from a subject-object point of view will inevitably
flounder and fail.
>Dave:
>I recently claimed that the MOQ helped me understand some current
>events, namely the impeachment of Clinton and the NATO action against
>Serbia. In the same post, I suggested that some folks might be
>frustrated by the MOQ when it disagrees with strongly held ideological
>beliefs. (Or any kind of full cup, I guess.) In other words, trouble
>with the levels may not stem from an inability to understand so much as
>a refusal to accept MOQ conclusions. (No Struan, its not aimed at you. I
>guess its aimed at anyone who takes politics and history seriously or
>anyone whose ears turn red and hot upon reading it. ) I bring this up
>because I think there is another, similar trap with regard to mysticism.
>
>
>I think David T raised it and John B repeated the concern. It went
>something like this... "everybody just hop on board the mystical train
>to DQ and then you'll know that everything is good". They and others
>object to mysticism for good rational reasons. Its healthy skepticism.
>BUT...
>
>A. Pirsig says flatly, explicitly and repeatedly that it is equated with
>DQ.
>B. Faith is not required for "belief" in mysticism. Short of a mystical
>experience there are libraries full of books on the topic and the
>reports of others are numerous enough to be taken seriously as evidence.
>You've never experienced death, but you know it happens to people. You
>probably knew there was such a thing as falling in love even when you
>were 5 years old and the other gender had kooties. But when you finally
>fell in love you began to really appreciate what all the face sucking
>was about. One can know "about" something even before you really get
>there. That's what maps are for. The MOQ is a map of reality and DQ is
>one of the largest features on it.
Glove:
I do not think the MOQ is a map of reality as independent from ourself.
Rather it is a high Quality interpretation of our perception of reality.
>
>So, hop on board. Really. That's why he gives us those kenetic images,
>you know. Trains and motorcycles and sailboats all move thru space with
>a kind of leading edge. He's consistant in these analogies for a good
>reason. DQ is at that cutting edge and that cutting edge is at the heart
>of the MOQ. DQ is at the heart of the last moral code too, and that one
>sort of rules over all the others.
>(All other things being equal, the most Dynamic is the most moral.)
>
>Which brings me back to the starting point; the explanatory power of the
>MOQ.
>When we use the levels and codes instead of SOM we almost have to
>rephrase the question. Instead of asking how moral is it or how good is
>it, we ought to ask how is it good or how is it moral. Pirsig is trying
>to make the case that everything is composed of quality and only that
>which has value exists. So when we examine any situation we ask "what
>values are at stake here? What kinds of static quality are in conflict?"
>The levels tell us there are different categories of good, as in "the
>adultry was good, but only according to biological level values".
>In that sense, everything has quality. Just like Lila herself. She had
>that kind of quality, if nothing else. "Intellectually, she was
>nowhere." For Lila, the intellect had no value and did not exist.
Glove:
Lila was a very astute individual... remember she "knew" that Phaedrus was
recently separated because of his shabby appearance and lack of food on the
boat. She could see that he was used to being taken care of. She was very
definitely somewhere
intellectually, but that place was unknown to Phaedrus and he could not see
the value contained there. This answer that
Lila was nowhere intellectually obviously didn't satisfy Phaedrus because he
continues pondering whether Lila has Quality or not.
Lila is lost in the
stormy seas of life with only her intellect to guide her. If anything,
socially she was nowhere... family and friends gone, she was clinging
desperately to any straw that came her way. Her relationship with Jamie, a
very low quality situation and yet a situation that she knew, was preferable
to the unknown that lay in front of her, even though that unknown held
infinitely higher value. Perhaps we should consider that we are all like
Lila in that respect and not judge her too harshly...
Best wishes,
glove
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:05 BST