Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Thu, 30 Oct 1997 05:25:09 +0100
Oct. 27, Platt wrote:
> Putting the two together, the next level above the intellect, a code of
> Art, would be a comprehensive collection of laws about Quality or simply
> Laws of Quality. And what would that be? The Metaphysics of Quality itself.
I tend to follow my own lines of thought and not pay much attention
to other inputs, but Platt's "Next Level" entry broke through. First
I must admit that Pirsig's hint of a new level as a code of art has
passed me by (where is it to be found?), but Platt's reflections
about it is a major quality insight in its own right.
The MOQ itself as the next level?! At first I reacted much like
Diana; I saw no need for an extension of the present four-tiered
system, but it did not go away and after a while it struck me
as quite plausible - perhaps inevitable, but like Doug ......
> I anxiously await other TLS members' responses to Platt's proposal that
> MoQ itself be the next higher level. (I am fearful of broaching this
> topic directly -- myself.)
Still let me offer some tentative thoughts: A while back we spoke
about the emergence of intellect and I said that in a way
Subject/Object Metaphysics can be seen as identical to the
Intellectual level of the MOQ! This fits nicely in with Platt's
proposal. If the top level of the static sequence is SOM, then the
MOQ (as a totality) necessarily must transcend Intellect.
Platt went on to say:
> For further evidence that the MoQ is the next level up, consider that the
> lower levels fight against it. (James McCabe and Doug have brilliantly
> explained why.) Not only have social patterns bastardized the meaning of
> "quality," associating it with the white, heterosexual European male
> worldview and all the supposed social evils thereof, but the intellectual
> level ridicules the idea that the world is a moral order, employing such
> vitriolic language as found in the two critical reviews on the
> Forum--brazen attempts to intimidate the curious into apathy and silence.
> (The fights for dominance among levels can indeed be vicious.)
>
Yes, the academic/intellectual resistance against the MOQ is an
indication that it may be the first effort from a new level
to free itself from its parent. Remember that Pirsig's says that ALL
value levels start as part of, and in the service of, the lower one.
The time aspect is of course enormous and we will never know
if our speculations are valid, but it is an idea well worth pursuing.
Finally. We agreed that a lower level don't recognize the next
higher - as such - except as danger along its own perimeter
(was it James who formulated this very apt allusion?) Right. The
Intellectual level can't or won't recognize the MOQ, while we the
LILA SQUAD, from a still higher perspective, do!. I have always had
this problem when people ask me what the MOQ is. It doesn't fit any
category and escapes every box you try to put it into. Is this why it
is so elusive?
Thanks Platt, you brought in a new dimension to our
discussion.
Bo
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:06 CEST