From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Thu Oct 06 2005 - 16:00:17 BST
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]
And that is just what I thought Pirsig was doing with the four levels,
mixing up metaphors with a better set of logical tinker toys. But the
prevailing opinion here, at least on the surface, seems to be that he
erected some kind of immutable Great Pyramid to channel cosmic powers to
keep razor blades sharp in the King's Chamber.
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]
Basically, yes. But if you check into deterministic Chaos you will find that
it can be defined.
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]
The equal sign make my shorts creep a bit but: sort of, if you mean
undefined in a chaotic sense.
Quality, as the central term of the MoQ is undefined. It an elephant being
fondled by blind men. It is a dog's Buddah nature. But it is the Way,
harmony, Mark's "sweet spot". It is transcendent. I would even go further
and say our inability to apprehend Quality parallels our inabilty to achieve
certainty anywhere. It isn't just a philosophical matter or a lack of
capacity on our part. But for now my problem is having two terms with the
same non-meaning. In Chaos theory all of the really interesting things
happen on the edges. The sooner we get to the edge in these discussions the
better.
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 - 18:11:16 BST