From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Mon Apr 26 2004 - 20:15:05 BST
Steve:I don't see the MOQ levels as representing people's values but rather
describing all reality in terms of types of patterns of value and DQ.
Values are what *everything literally is* according to Pirsig's MOQ,
not merely what makes a given person tick.
DM: I broadly agree with this. But would say about 2 embedded comments below
that the organic does include the inorganic in the sense that when an
animal/plant dies it
returns to the earth and will break down to both organic (& gets reused by
other life forms)
and inorganic entities. Also the intellectual includes the social levels as
a means for its activity, e.g.
language is maintained and transmitted socially but is key in intellectual
activity.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Peterson" <peterson.steve@verizon.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: MD The Individual Level
> Hi DMB,
>
> On Apr 25, 2004, at 2:39 PM, David Buchanan wrote:
> > Steve asked:
> > How can they the intellectual level be at war with the social level if
> > it
> > includes it?
> >
> > dmb replies:
> > Think of the way biological organisms must fight against inorganic
> > forces
> > even while they include them. The atoms in their muscles are used to
> > resist
> > gravity, for example.
>
> But do muscles include gravity? The fact that any talk about muscles
> presupposes gravity supports the fact that the biological level is
> built upon the inorganic level. I don't see how it makes sense to say
> that the biological level literally *includes* the inorganic level, but
> then, I see the levels as types of patterns of value.
>
> > Think of the way social codes conflict with biological
> > impulses. Both are included in the whole person and yet they are at
> > odds.
>
> Both are included in the whole person since a person is a forest of
> static patterns, but I don't see how the social level is included in
> the intellectual level which I understand as including only patterns of
> thought.
>
> > The point is that all
> > levels include and transcend the ones below.
>
> So it is with Wilber's holon's. I don't see that in Pirsig's levels
> which he says are discrete.
>
> > Steve said:
> > I agree, so long as you don't *equate* the MOQ types of static patterns
> > with levels of development. I have no problem with the "idea of
> > talking about people in terms of the level of values that dominate
> > them." My problem is with defining the levels in terms of types of
> > people, i.e. the individual level, rather than understanding people in
> > terms of types of patterns of value. I tend to bring it up whenever we
> > come to a disagreement in this discussion group where I think clarity
> > can be gained by making that distinction.
> >
> > dmb replies:
> > Don't equate MOQ static patterns as levels of development?! What!? The
> > MOQ
> > is an evolutionary metaphysics, so the levels ARE levels of
> > development.
>
> They are levels of development as an evolutionary hierarchy of types of
> patterns of value. They are not primarily levels of personal
> development. They can be used to inform us about personal development,
> but that is not what they are.
>
> If you follow Wilber rather than Pirsig, which you seem to, you will
> see these levels as levels of development in the evolution of the mind
> rather than in the far broader terms that Pirsig is talking about with
> morals as real as rocks and trees in an evolutionary metaphysics that
> includes rocks, trees, and minds and explains them all in terms of
> patterns of value rather than subjects and objects.
>
> > Steve said:
> > By the way, when you say so and so is "on the ____ level," do you mean
> > it like Platt that the person is dominated by that level rather than
> > literally that type of pattern of value?
> >
> > dmb replies:
> > Rather that literally that type of pattern?
> > I honestly don't know what you
> > mean?
>
> I'm asking whether when you say a person is, for example, on the social
> level, are you saying that the person is literally a social pattern of
> value? Or like Platt, are you saying that the person is dominated by
> social value patterns?
>
> Your "I honestly don't know what you mean?" reminds me of your defense
> to Matt's complaints about metaphysics. It seems that you were in fact
> being sincere, you really don't play metaphysics. I see Pirisig's
> levels as describing what everything is, where you seem to see them as
> describing what people value.
>
> > Oddly, I can see that its related to the distinction that I don't see.
> > And I can see that you're asking about the phase, "on the x level", but
> > beyond that I'm lost. Let me just say that I think each person exhibits
> > their values in ways we can detect and that, roughly, we can make a
> > call
> > about what makes a person tick. Its not any more complicated than that.
>
> I don't see the MOQ levels as representing people's values but rather
> describing all reality in terms of types of patterns of value and DQ.
> Values are what *everything literally is* according to Pirsig's MOQ,
> not merely what makes a given person tick.
>
> Regards,
> 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
>
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 Apr 26 2004 - 20:39:39 BST