From: Joseph Maurer (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Thu Jun 16 2005 - 19:11:37 BST
On Thursday 16 June 2005 8:07 AM Scott writes to Steve:
Scott:
First, I am not really trying to "define" individuality. I only want to
point out that the MOQ's definition of a person is inadequate, precisely
because it fudges on issues of agency and so on. But you raise an important
question here ("Is this ability to respond (directly) to DQ separate from
intellectual static patterns...?"). For instance, one can ask if inorganic
patterns are able to respond to DQ, and if not, then what is it about
intellectual patterns that make them different in this regard. And one can
ask, if the ability to respond to DQ is not separate from the static
patterns themselves, should one be calling them static? That ability seems
to me to be the essence of being dynamic.
My conclusion from these sorts of issues is that the MOQ has defined itself
in such a way that is simply has no adequate way to deal with human
entities. My solution to this problem is to stop considering intellect as
the fourth level of SQ, but see it instead as on the same level as Quality.
On Thurs 16 June 2005 8:51 AM Mike quotes Bo:
Bo replied, fascinatingly:
Most well-founded observations, but I don't postulate "a sharp
divide" between a metaphysics and reality. I say that the MOQ is
the Quality Reality. Look. SOM was the S/O reality and the first
move by Pirsig was to point to it, split it from reality, and the first
reactions (from the few who noticed) were to deny a SOM
...which proves my point: it WAS reality itself. The S/O reality.
Hi Mike, Steve, Bo, Scott and all,
As a peeping Joe, I was struck by the similarity of *the Quality Reality*
and the *same level as Quality*.
Joe muses on the *Commentaries* by Maurice Nicoll: the perennial philosophy
describes every manifestation to be according to a law of 3 forces. The
order of manifestation is to a law of seven, e.g. the octave. IMO the levels
of inorganic, organic, social, intellectual are an order of manifestation of
*quality*.
A metaphor: the pendulum of decision swings between *yes* or *no*. The
finest decision lies at the swiftest part of the pendulum swing, the bottom,
*yes and no*.
Joe
> Steve,
>
> Steve said:
> How does agency fit into this picture? Didn't Pirsig claim as one of the
> attributes of a person the ability to respond to DQ?
>
> Scott:
> He did, but I fail to see that it helps the problem. Why not say that an
> agent *is* DQ (or better, DQ/SQ interaction)? Why not acknowledge that
> intellect creates? Because, as far as I can see, to do so conflicts with
> his
> anti-intellectual prejudice, stemming from his mystical presuppositions.
>
> Steve continued:
> To define an
> individual as the smallest 'unit' of agency (along with continuity as you
> suggest) clearly gives substance to what we mean by a person as opposed to
> just an amalgamation of static intellectual patterns which seems to ignore
> obvious individuality. Is this ability to respond (directly) to DQ
> separate
> from intellectual static patterns in the same sense that inorganic and
> biological patterns are a separate level (or any of the other levels)?
> This
> would be a good working definition of self-awareness for the MOQ.
>
> Scott:
> First, I am not really trying to "define" individuality. I only want to
> point out that the MOQ's definition of a person is inadequate, precisely
> because it fudges on issues of agency and so on. But you raise an
> important
> question here ("Is this ability to respond (directly) to DQ separate from
> intellectual static patterns...?"). For instance, one can ask if inorganic
> patterns are able to respond to DQ, and if not, then what is it about
> intellectual patterns that make them different in this regard. And one can
> ask, if the ability to respond to DQ is not separate from the static
> patterns themselves, should one be calling them static? That ability seems
> to me to be the essence of being dynamic.
>
> My conclusion from these sorts of issues is that the MOQ has defined
> itself
> in such a way that is simply has no adequate way to deal with human
> entities. My solution to this problem is to stop considering intellect as
> the fourth level of SQ, but see it instead as on the same level as
> Quality.
>
> - Scott
>
> Live well,
> Steve
>
>
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 : Thu Jun 16 2005 - 19:14:31 BST