Donald S. Rosenow (donangel@netusa1.net)
Tue, 1 Sep 1998 18:31:06 +0100
Hello, Troy and LS!
Troy, let me preface my remarks by stating that Mensa is not likely to
be mailing me an engraved invitation any time soon, and I obtained the
education I have mostly on my own and in my spare time. Please be
patient with me.
Sometimes I think my biggest problem is language. "Morality", "create",
"value", and a few of the other terms tossed around so casually around
here have very definite connotations for me. I wish that I did not have
to recast sentences into MOQ speak and translate MOQ speak into terms I
can more readily grasp. But that's *my* problem!
Forgive me for combining two threads in my reply, but they dovetail
nicely, at least in my own mind.
Troy wrote:
>>i utterly disagree. i see how Pirsig has set up a schema in which the
>>universe evolves to Dynamic Quality. static quality are the latchings
the
>>universe takes along the way.
Maybe I misunderstand the MOQ, but doesn't DQ drive evolution?
>>(is MOQ an ontology?).
I strongly suspect it is. But that may just be my language problem
again. See below.
>>i think Pirsig was getting at: real morality is above and beyond
human response, at least in the ideal metaphysics.
and from your post of 8/31/98
>>>what i should say, is everything has Value, and that this value is
its morality.
The only perspective that matters is the human one. Humans care; make
value judgments. The Quality that is perceived is peculiar to each
individual. The generator of the Quality Event (that rock colliding
with the Earth) is amoral. It has value (mass, velocity, etc.), but to
assign it Morality based on it's physical attributes? That makes sense
only if a moral force guided that rock to the impact. Is that an
attribute of Quality also? If one is to make that statement, then one
enters the realm of theology.
>>i can call time a thing. so MOQ would argue that time exists, time
has
morality, and so on.
I could call xlmfkvv a "thing". I could assign it attributes. In fact,
its attributes are obvious now. MOQ would argue that xlmfkvv exists, has
morality, etc. But it has those attributes because they were assigned to
it by humans. If we, or some other sentient race, did not exist, would
Quality?
Pirsig never resolved the question of whether or not Quality was the
Tao. I surely do not know, but the Squad has been a Godsend!
Troy, just curious as to how this statement strikes you:
Generated by Quality, time, as a phenomenon, is utterly linear and
unidirectional. Reality then is an infinite array of discreet moments
connected by Quality.
That is essentially how I view the relationship of DQ to the four static
levels. Between level 1 and level 2 are levels 1.a through 1.z; 1.aa
through 1.zz lie between 1.a and 1.z and so on through as many sub
levels as you wish. The same between each of the other levels. DQ is the
mechanism that drives evolution. Each of us has the four levels within
us because we - and I think we can allow for the possibility that other
sentient beings, if they exist, may be included - are the culmination of
evolution to this point. Level four is evolving incrementally toward
level five and it is the continual consideration of Quality(?) that
propels us to the next level. Either that, or this is a rather enjoyable
waste of time.
Gawd. Reading through this hodgepodge it is difficult to believe that I
used to get paid for writing. I hope there is something useful in here
to somebody.
Don.
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:45 CEST