TO DAVID BUCHANAN AND BODVAR SKUTVIC AND ANYONE ELSE INTERESTED IN VALUE
FORCE IN RELATION TO QUALITY
David wrote:
> Pirsig's MOQ is an alternative view where neither subject nor object is
> supreme. Instead, subjects and objects are created by Quality.
Glove:
subjects and objects ARE Quality, yes, but they are created, and discreated,
by value
forces.
David:
He's
> saying that subjects and objects do exist, but only as intellectual
> patterns of value, which are also created by Quality.
It's a subtle, but crucial difference. The intellectual level is NOT
exactly the same as SOM. For example, Pirsig's books are full of
thoughts that are, the author hopes, not within SOM. I'd argue that all
genuine Mysticisms are also outside of SOM and that's why the author
uses them to help explain the MOQ. In short the author believes that the
intellect can handle metaphysical systems other than SOM. Its just that
the SOM has become so dominant that we tend to equate it with not only
the intellect, as you formerly believed, but with reality itself.
Glove:
i would say Pirsig claims subjects and objects exist as cultural, or social
patterns of value rather than intellect patterns of value. remember his
reference to Descartes "I think, therefore I am" only being true in the
context of Descartes cultural French background and that a Chinese
philosopher making the same statement would probably not have been taken
seriously at all by his peers. yes, the intellect CAN handle other
metaphysical systems because it opposes them all and attempts to discreate
them in a drive to Dynamic freedom.
David:
I believe the
> phrase "patterns of value" has essential the same meaning as "static
> quality". They are both refer to that which is created by Dynamic
> Quality. They are both ways of saying that Quality has frozen into a
> stable form or crystalized into an enduring pattern. All this static
> quality is percieved in SOM as the world of subjects and objects.
Glove:
we often talk of Dynamic Quality creating static quality, but we cannot
forget it also destroys it as well. forces of value are not just the
creative forces which hold the static patterns of value in place, but also
discreative ones working synergistically together. perhaps it is the tension
between these forces of value that we perceive and call static patterns of
value. these patterns are channeled and constrained into locally perceived
cultural values which we mistakenly assume are of highest intellectual value
when in fact they are of highest social value instead. we agree on this i
think.
Bodvar:
Whoops! I had a small epiphany right now. You say: "He wants to
help usher in new intellectual patterns that can recognize and
accomodate the underlying Quality". Right! If I claim that
Intellect S-O itself it can't be "modified" to recognize - or
accommodate - for quality. I see and you are right! That is why
I pursue the idea that the MOQ is a first attempt of a breakout from
the S-O chain of Intellect.
Glove:
i see the Metaphysics of Quality as an attempt by the intellect to break the
subject/object chain of social level static quality. Pirsigs concentration
on the Victorian era seems like a perfect illustration of this. and
understanding the way value forces work within the four static levels is a
Good starting point.
best wishes to all
glove
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 - 16:02:48 BST