Re: MD levels

From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Thu Dec 05 2002 - 21:07:45 GMT

  • Next message: Wim Nusselder: "Re: MD levels"

    Dear Platt,

    I wrote 3 Dec 2002 23:24:17 +0100:
    'You may know by now that in my MoQ a level comes into being when a new type
    of patterns of value comes into being. You will also know that I don't care
    very much whether Pirsig would agree, but only whether he and others would
    still recognize my MoQ as MoQ (in other words: whether it is still a part of
    the MoQ understood as an intellectual pattern of value). I know that for you
    a statement is only true in a MoQ context if it is a correct interpretation
    of Pirsig's words, however, so please explain yourself on that basis.'

    You replied 4 Dec 2002 11:09:57 -0500:
    'No offense, but there's no point in explaining myself if you don't care
    about what Pirsig says and would rather create your own MoQ. We're all
    trying to interpret the MoQ in our own way and come to it with all sorts of
    preconceptions that are hard to cast off. My way is not the only way, for
    sure. Nor would I attempt to impose my way on anyone.'

    But I DO care what YOU write and what YOUR version of the MoQ is. I just
    don't care MORE about what Pirsig wrote than about what everybody else on
    this list writes. For you 'the MoQ = what Pirsig wrote' and 'what we are
    doing = interpreting the MoQ'. For me 'what Pirsig wrote = the first static
    latch for the MoQ' and 'what we are doing = seeking next higher static
    latches for that -still recognizably- same MoQ'. We are not just
    interpreting a static MoQ according to me, but we are also trying to make it
    more versatile and/or more stable and/or more in harmony with emergent 5th
    level patterns of value. We are making it migrate towards DQ.

    The point in explaining (what you see as) your interpretation of the MoQ
    (which I read as your version of the MoQ) is, that this may clarify where
    the differences between Pirsig's, your and my versions/interpretations of
    the MoQ are due to degeneration (catching on a lower latch) and where they
    are due to intellectual progress (catching on a higher latch).

    So I again ask you to -please- answer:
    How and from which passages do you conclude that intellectual patterns of
    value arose simultaneously with the social level and that the arising of
    intellectual patterns of value doesn't imply that the intellectual level
    arose?
    (And a legitimate answer CAN be, that this idea doesn't unequivocally follow
    from Pirsig's -sometimes contradictory- writings, but seems to you to be a
    necessary clarification and improvement. In which case it is up to you to
    develop it further.)

    Regarding the value of adding to the MoQ the distinction between 'interior'
    (experience, awareness?) and 'exterior' (appearance, phenomena?) and the
    risk of thus re-introducing subject-object analysis into the MoQ, our
    'agreement to disagree' is indeed nicely summarized by you in:
    'You see problems that I don't see.'
    Let's leave it to others to judge whether I am making mountains out of
    molehills or whether you are blind to serious problems.

    One last clarification (I hope) of my position:
    I agree that Quality, when creating subjects and objects, may well create
    more awareness in me of a horseshoe crab than in that horseshoe crab of me.
    I
    agree that the increase of awareness over time in the most successful
    species is a valuable addition to Darwinian evolution theory. BUT I think
    that THAT type of 'awareness' is a typical SOM concept that shouldn't be
    identified with the MoQ concepts 'direct experience' and 'value'. That
    progressively increasing type of awareness is just a deduced (indirect)
    experience that is created by Quality/'direct experience'/'value'.
    That improved version of Darwinian evolution theory is still part of SOM
    based science. The very next conclusion will be that this horseshoe crab's
    awareness of me is not very accessible and therefore not very relevant to
    us. It can better be ignored in favor of a high quality 'objective'
    description of its exterior aspect and in favor of a meticulous comparison
    of that description with my awareness of that horseshoe crab.

    With friendly greetings,

    Wim

    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 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 05 2002 - 21:08:18 GMT