From: Rebecca Temmer (ratemmer.lists@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Oct 05 2005 - 20:45:39 BST
Hello Case (and everyone),
here's a bit of a commentfest:
On 10/5/05, Case <Case@ispots.com> wrote:
>
> [Case]
> As far as the levels business goes I am talking about the four Static
> levels, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual. As I mention
> somewhere else I took this to be Pirsig test driving the MoQ not the final
> word. On the one hand he simply reiterates the way subjects are laid out
> in
> most college catalogs which is fine. But when he claims they are discrete
> from one another this does not ring true to me at all. Furthermore his
> purpose is to interject a moral order by way of this heirarchy. I would be
> delighted to discuss how one can derive a moral order from the study of
> science through the apprehension of Quality but I don't think the four
> levels is the proper route.
Rebecca (all IMO of course):
The four levels are necessary only because it seems to be useful that we be
able to look at the world in different (discrete) ways. If it weren't useful
(high quality) then we could just say SQ/DQ and leave it at that. As for a
moral (ethical) tool, who knows. We have to figure out how to define the
damn thing first before we can go around applying it to problems. Let's not
put the cart before the horse.
Case:
> Quality is the undefined term in MoQ. I have issues of emphasis
> with Pirsig's nondefinition but setting those aside for the moment, the
> big
> problem is DQ. The conflation of Quality with DQ does begin with Pirsig. I
> can excuse him because I believe his misuse of the term is usually a
> matter
> of rhetorical convenience or perhaps it is because he did not anticipate
> contemporary advances in math and science that made definition of DQ
> possible. In almost every instance were DQ makes sense, it sounds to a
> westerner like Chaos. Defined this way DQ fits nicely into oriental
> schools
> of thought as well. It is the active aspect, Yang.
Rebecca:
Isn't 'Chaos' another word for 'undefined'? Therein, it would be like DQ...
in that it can't be defined because as soon as it is, it isn't chaotic
anymore...
Case:
Until this matter is resolved I see the MoQ stagnating. Having two undefined
> terms in a vocabulary of only four words is not productive in my view.
> As for the inner and outer issue. I am of course using them as code words
> for SOM. Although Pirsig shows obvious distain for SOM I believe he claims
> to have illuminiated not eliminated it. I do think there are hard
> distinctions between subject and objects. But I would maintain that there
> is
> only one subject in SOM and that would be me. You may have your own SOM
> where the subject is you but I think any SOM that includes a plural for
> subject is way off base from the get go.
Rebecca:..
Quality = All that is defined (SQ) + all that is undefined (DQ)... makes
sense to me. Would that make Quality transcendent, though? Can we do that?
Case:
> So I guess the question that remains is how much trouble have I gotten
> myself into?
Rebecca:
Trouble is my middle name...
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 Oct 06 2005 - 01:21:08 BST