Date: Thu Feb 05 2004 - 19:51:45 GMT
On 5 Feb 2004 at 19:35, Valence wrote:
> February's topic is
> 1) Is it THE MoQ we are discussing (i.e. as meant by Pirsig) or are we
> (should we be) discussing the merits of our various versions (with
> Pirsig's writings expressing only one version or even a version that
> develops in time)? --- Wim Nusselder
It would not be much of a discussion if the understanding of the
MOQ was unanimous. Wim has been around long enough to
remember the various bones of contention up through the years.
Rick even longer, and may remember Doug Renselle's sub-
inorganic levels and inscrutable tables. And there is certainly no
level below the inorganic in the MOQ ..while it is open at the top.
Then there was a lot of discussion about the biological level, if for
instance if the cells in a body could be regarded as "societies". I
believe Magnus was the chief here. And then the eternal source
of dispute - social value - so I guess there have been questions
about all levels and that Pirsig's meaning" isn't all crystal clear.
I guess it's my harping on the intellectual level that is Wim's
issue, but why should that level be exempted and why should that
be regarded as so grave as to be called another "version" of the
MOQ? Anyway, as an opening, my reply is "MU" because I don't
understand the question.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
MF Queries - email@example.com
To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 06 2004 - 01:59:22 GMT