From: MarshaV (marshalz@charter.net)
Date: Sun Apr 10 2005 - 16:07:50 BST
Hi Wim,
At 02:37 PM 4/10/2005 +0200, you wrote:
>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.
Marsha:
I reread your 9Apr 07:49 +0200 post. It was not that clear. I have found
and read your quotes in the book, but I would like to reread both Chapter
11 & 12. I don't think your restatements of the Lila quotes are clear or
accurate. I certainly could be wrong, but that is why I prefer to reread
the full chapters.
>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),..."
Wouldn't it be 'From the Social Level point of view, Static Quality in the
Intellectual Level...'? And what would be the Social Level's
point-of-view? Isn't the Social Level a collection of Static Quality that
deals with social issues?
>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'm not sure where my interpretation comes from.
> 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.)
To me, it seems that you change the language. That's confusing. I'm here
to get a deeper understanding of the MOQ. I'm a student of MOQ. If your
introducing your own, new and improved interpretation, you'll only confuse
me. I will reread the two Lila chapters, though, to see if that sheds some
light.
Marsha
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 - 17:43:57 BST