Re: MD MOQ human development and the levels

From: Paul Turner (
Date: Tue Jun 10 2003 - 13:27:44 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: RE: MD MOQ human development and the levels"

    Hi Steve

    > Steve:
    > Based on the quotes you provided, clearly DMB uses
    > different definitions of
    > the static levels than Pirsig does. You should
    > know that DMB also
    > considers some human beings to be biological
    > patterns of values (e.g. Lila),
    > others to be social patterns of value (e.g. Rigel),
    > and still others to be
    > intellectual patterns of values (e.g. DMB)--also
    > directly contradicted by
    > one of the quotes you cited from Lila's Child.

    Pirsig clearly states that a baby forms intellectual
    patterns of value immediately, if, according to DMB,
    that then makes them 'intellectuals' maybe we should
    invite some babies on for a discussion :-)

    I think Pirsig's commments in Lila's Child and the
    responses he has given in letters to Ant McWatt and
    others provide precision missing from Lila. Precision
    he openly admits is missing. When you write something
    like Lila it must be hard to gauge how much you need
    to hammer certain points to convey something when it
    is so clear to you.

    The annotations are a direct reponse to the different
    kinds of interpretation Lila has created. They are
    divorced from narrative and literary device.

    Here is an example:

    In response to one contributors blurring of the
    biological and social levels by referring to a
    'cell-society' (after misinterpreting Pirsig's
    statement about 'metazoan societies called plants and
    animals') Pirsig comments -

    '"Societies" is used figuratively here as a more
    colorful word meaning "groups". If I had known it
    would be taken literally as evidence that cells belong
    in the social level I would not have used it. Maybe in
    a future edition it can be struck out.'

    Poor Pirsig, if he struck out all of the colourful
    words to provide precision, it would end up as a

    Once you apply the precision given in LC back to Lila,
    the whole thing is a lot clearer, in my opinion
    anyway. And it still makes a great read!

    > It is interesting to talk about what patterns of
    > value dominate the behavior
    > of the people or the teaching of the school, but it
    > doesn't make sense to me
    > to make a metaphysical distinction in kind between
    > two human beings or
    > between two schools as we would between a dog and a
    > scientific law or an
    > atom and a government.

    I'm glad you see that too.

    > I suspect that there is an important distinction
    > between "being dominated
    > by" a particular type of pattern and actually being
    > a particular type of
    > pattern that would be useful here.

    Yes, good point.

    > I'd be very interested to hear anyone else's
    > thoughts about distinguishing
    > intellectual and social patterns.

    Me too. Maybe everybody else had it figured out ages



    Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 10 2003 - 13:29:52 BST