From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Sun Apr 10 2005 - 13:37:57 BST
Dear Marsha,
You wrote 10 Apr 04:04 -0400:
> I am interested in the Metaphysics of Quality. I would appreciate it if
you
> would stick to the MOQ terminology when you describe such a detailed
> comparison.
>
> You wrote "At the social level intellectual patterns of value
(intellectual
> quality),...". MOQ describes Static Quality (SQ) at the four different
> levels. It would be SQ at the Inorganic Level, or SQ at the Biological
> Level, or SQ at the Social Level, or SQ at the Intellectual Level. And I
> believe that MOQ describes Dynamic Quality (DQ) able to interact
> independently with each level. If you stick to this MOQ structure, I will
> be better able to understand you.
And 10 Apr 04:49 -0400:
> If you are challenging the MOQ model, you'll have to explain the
> challenge. I might guess that it has something to do with thought versus
> the Intellectual Level. Where and how exactly do you think the MOQ Levels
> model breaks down?
I didn't mean to challenge Pirsig's version of the MoQ in this exchange with
you. I did refer you 9 Apr 07:49 +0200 to quotes from 'Lila' supporting (I
hope) my way understanding, didn't I? That must have been either unclear or
unconvincing.
Some unclarity in my latest post to you in this thread (10 Apr 07:24 +0200)
may have been caused by writing "At the social level intellectual patterns
of value (intellectual quality),..." instead of "From a social level point
of view intellectual patterns of value (intellectual quality),..."
Whether DQ is able to interact independently with each level or only through
the next higher level has been a matter of dispute on this list. Some people
might be interested to know which :Pirsig quotes you have found to support
the 'independent interaction' option. I tend to start from my own
interpretation of the MoQ and only seek Pirsig quotes to support it
afterwards. In this case I'm of the opinion that the two options are
indistinguishable from the point of view of the level being interacted with.
That's the point of view that seems most important to me.
I think I DID stick to the MoQ structure as you described it.
(I sometimes DO deviate. I prefer to rename the 4th level 'symbolic
level' -following Pirsig's definition of the intellectual level in 'Lila's
Child'- and the 3rd level 'habitual level'. Those deviations are not
relevant for our discussion right now, however. I don't see them as a
challenge, either. It's rather a refinement: sharper definitions of Pirsig's
levels.)
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Sun Apr 10 2005 - 13:47:59 BST