RE: MD MOQ human development and the levels

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Jun 28 2003 - 22:05:23 BST

  • Next message: Ian Glendinning: "RE: MD Introduction and Questions"

    Wim, Bo, Steve, Paul and all MOQERS:

    Wim said:
    According to Pirsig the levels of sq in his MoQ are discrete. I can't
    reconcile the idea that a higher level transcends and includes a lower level
    with the idea that these two levels are nevertheless discrete. Can you?

    Steve said:
    I don't at all think it is impossible to talk about specific patterns of
    value. Recall the Pirsig describes the levels as discrete--not a nesting
    like Wilber's levels. ....... I can tell that the way you think of the
    levels works for you, but it causes misunderstandings for those that don't
    realize that you don't work with patterns of value as discrete. What do you
    think about the examples that Paul gave? I agree with his categorizations.

    Paul said:
    It would seem the MOQ has failed, confusion has not
    been prevented. And if one can write myths without a
    mind, then I'm seriously confused.

    dmb says:
    I wish I had lots more time for this. It seems to me that that it takes some
    outside reading and some unconventional notions to really get a handle on
    this stuff. People who know Barfield or Maslow tend to grasp it right away.
    I can testify. As a Campbell fan, I was happy to take Pirsig's advice and
    read the MASKS OF GOD. There are lots of ways to explore the distinction
    between the mythos and the logos, the social and intellectual levels. Take
    yer pick.

    With that in mind, I have no trouble at all with the idea that the senior
    levels both include and transcend the junior ones. Its no problem for the
    levels to be BOTH nested and discrete. Think of the way inorganic atoms and
    such are included in but distinctly different than organic tissue. You can't
    have intellect without social level thinking any more than you have have
    bones without atoms. Nested and discrete. No problem.

    Paul, its not that "one can write myths without a mind", its that one can
    write a myth without the intellect. I can see from your posts that you have
    a radically different sense of the mythos/logos distinction, so I won't even
    try to go there. But briefly, I'd simply assert that for tens of thousands
    of years humans have lived in organized societies, told stories, held
    beliefs and all kinds of things that we'd consider "intellectual" in some
    vague sense of the word. But I think these cognitive skills, these obvious
    signs of intelligence are not what Pirsig is talking about in describing the
    intellectual level. I mean, this is though to talk about. We should even be
    more careful, i suppose, in tossing out words like "think" "mind" and
    "intellect" without saying exactly what we mean. It seems the whole debate
    is about making a distinction bewteen two "QUALITATIVELY" and distinctly
    different KINDS of thinking, two seperate forms mind.

    Thanks,
    DMB

    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 : Sat Jun 28 2003 - 22:05:23 BST