Hi Alex and LS:
As a fellow South Carolinian I feel privileged to welcome you to the
Squad and take a stab at answering your wonderfully provocative
questions.
> (1) How does MoQ define truth. I know that Empiricism defines it as
> anything received by the senses or derived from them, And Pirsig said
> that MoQ subscribes to empiricism, But How does MoQ Define Truth?
Truth is a high quality set of intellectual patterns, a species of
good whose tests are logical consistency, agreement with experience
and economy of explanation. The MoQ does not insist on a single,
exclusive truth. To quote one of my favorite passages from Lila: "One
can then examine intellectual realities the same way he examines
paintings in an art gallery, not with an effort to find out which one
is the 'real' painting but simply to enjoy and keep those that are of
value."
> (2) The next one is, is it moral to steal bread (low social Quality)
> if you are about to die of hunger(low biological Quality). the
> problem is that if the biological being dies, so do the social and
> intellectual ones, so wouldn't that me social Quality indirectly
> undermining intellectual?
Social quality consistently attempts to undermine (devour)
intellectual quality, e.g., political correctness. Likewise,
biological quality seeks to undermine social quality, e.g., thievery,
adultery, booze, gambling, drugs. Since social quality is a higher
level than biological quality, it is immoral to steal the product of
another's work (bread) to save your biological pattern.
> (3) From what I've heard about Quantum Physics it sounds to me like a
> tier below chemical,(Quantum seems to be a completely different level
> obeying completely different laws) this has probably been answered
> long before now but I haven't seen it yet.
Yes, this was hotly debated long ago. Most LS members at the time were
content to leave Pirsig's four levels in tact, placing the quantum
world within the Inorganic level. Whether that's right or not appears
to have little bearing on the rest of the MoQ. In metaphysics the
question will always be,"And what came before that?" Neither Pirsig
nor the quantum physicists have the answer.
> (4) Along the same vein could MoQ be a higher tier (Quality Realizing
> that it exists?) because it seems to be a completely different level
> than intellectual
Yes. I suggested this some time ago but have yet to flesh out the idea
in logical terms. "Quality realizing it exists" is an excellent
beginning assumption upon which to build a rational explanation of a
possible next level. I hope you and I and others on the Squad will
have an opportunity to discuss this in depth at some point. (I suspect
art and beauty fit in here somehow, but have yet to pin it all down.)
> (5) This last one has been puzzling me for a while. How, in a value
> based universe, did SOM even come to exist. to me it's obvious that
> MoQ is of much higher value
SOM was the static latch required by life to survive. The concepts of
self and other were built in at the beginning to enable the organism
to identify environmental threats to its existence. As such, SOM is as
basic to life forms as the sun. When humans evolved it became vitally
necessary to form groups to survive and thus the social level was
created along with language and logic which are also SOM-based. So SOM
has considerable value in value-based universe. But the MoQ has higher
value because while it includes SOM, it transcends it with a much
broader and I believe better explanation of reality.
Well, such are my thoughts at the moment, subject to change of course
and always open to rebuttal.
Are you anywhere near Myrtle Beach?
Platt
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:39 BST