From: Erin N. (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Mon Jul 07 2003 - 03:04:32 BST
>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
>Hey David, Steve, and all,
>
>DMB
>> Who could argue with such a calm and level-headed request for clarity? I
>> could. :-) Not that I have anything against clarity. In fact, I hope to
>add
>> some. But its worth pointing out that talking about the various levels of
>> values in terms of people seems VERY APPROPRIATE and is very much a part
>of
>> the main point. Pirsig's decision to present his MOQ as a novel clearly
>> demonstrates this, I think. He not only invents the title character as an
>> example of what his levels looks like in the real world, but an entire
>cast
>> of fictional characters, his own biography, a large number of historical
>> examples and many other examples from the actaul living world. (Nobody can
>> accuse this guy of being too abstact or other-worldly, eh!)My point is
>that
>> actual living people are simply the most likely way, if not the only way,
>we
>> are going to encounter the various values in our real lives. I think it is
>> more than just useful or appropriate to talk about values in terms of
>> people, I think its one of the main purposes of the book.
>
>R
>I think I'm with Steve on this one. I don't mind calling someone a "4th
>level person" as shorthand for "a person dominated by 4th level values" but
>I think that's all Pirsig is doing when identifies an individual with a
>level. I agree with you that the novel form was meant as an example of what
>the levels look like in the real world, but I think it's meant to be an
>example of how a person dominated by 4th-level values (Phaedrus) might deal
>with a person dominated by 3rd level values (Rigel) or 2nd level values
>(Lila). I don't think he literally meant that Phaedrus IS an intellectual
>pattern of value, or that Rigel IS a social pattern value.
>
>take care
>rick
>
>Stay at home in your mind. Don't recite other people's opinions. I hate
>quotations. Tell me what you know. - R.W. Emerson
>
I was thinking about this the other day. I know this hierarchy has been
compared to Maslow's self-actualization/ hierarchy of needs, where lower needs
need to be met for further needs.
I mean supposedly the unabomber was an intelligent mathematician but he's not
really on my top 10 list of most moral people, maybe top 20 kidding kidding.
So just asking for feedback from anybody
1) would you put the Unabomber as 4th level dominated?
2) how does MoQ distinguish somebody who is dominated by intellectual values
with lower levels neglected vs dominated by intellectual values with lower
levels being met
3)how in general does a hierarchy deal with balance
I know somebody Wim (i think?) had the levels mapped out as a quadrant I
remember seeing awhile back....is that a better mental picture then hieararchy
triangle in Maslow's model...
Just curious what picture people *see* when thinking about this
Erin
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 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 02:54:15 BST