BODVAR, MARY, JONATHAN & SQUAD:
Couldn't help "overhearing" your debate on SOM, etc. Thought I'd throw a
few thoughts into the mix, if I may.
I'm going to say the same things in several different ways in hopes of
clearity.
MOQ's "patterns of value" are percieved by us as the world of subjects
and objects. These "patterns of value" apppear to ordinary consciousness
as "the world of the ten thousand things", as they say in the East. In
the West's SOM, the world is not only divided, but subjects and objects
are the only two classes of things. In SOM there is nothing else but
subjects and objects. Thus the problem. Where does quality reside? Where
is value in a universe made of only subjects and objects?
As an answer, Pirsig then says that if value and quality are excluded
from reality, or are "just subjective" judgements, then the world makes
no sense and looks very ugly. MOQ says that Quality is more fundemental
than the things in which it is supposed to inhere. MOQ says that Quality
is a more primary reality that gives rise to what we think of as
subjects and objects, but are actually patterns of value. Thus, the MOQ
says that dynamic quality events are the primary empirical reality, the
actual experience unadorned by concepts or thoughts of subjects or
objects of things.
The patterns of value on all levels can and do interact with one another
perpetually, all without concepts or thoughts getting in the way of
their "value-ing". Or "logos-ing" if you prefer. Thus the climb of
evolution and the rise of the four levels. The MOQ says that in spite of
our illusions about subjects and objects, all of the universe is
composed of value, every last bit of it. Subjects and objects are real,
but there is a primary reality behind and throughout them.
To examine the four levels, their interactions and the overall thrust of
its' evolutionary nature, one does have to try to leave SOM behind. It
is the very image of the MOQ after all. I've been seeing alot of
physics, biology and computer languange in the discussion of the levels.
In my view, this is a futile exercise that will only result in ment
brains. Its mixing the two metaphysical systems in very confused ways.
I'm afraid to suggest this because I can't see exactly how it could be
accomplished in fact and deed, but we have to start looking the levels
in terms of what the value. I mean if value is the very stuff of reality
and the primary empirical reality, then it only stands to reason that
examine the levels in those terms.
Seems I remember Pirsig's thoughts about New York city. It was toward
the end of Lila and haven't read it in a long time. He described the
city as "pattern of values" unto itself. I presumed he meant it as an
example of any value pattern at the social level. He explained that the
city had its own values. He said that if you serve those values it will
reward you, almost as if it were alive and experessing its own will. He
said if you act contrary to its values, it will try to destroy you.
(Which explains alot about who makes money in this world, servants of
social values.)
What does the intellect value?
What does society value?
What does life value?
What does time, space, energy and matter value?
Not sure what the answers are, but I'm sure we would profit by asking
them.
I "value" your replies.
David B.
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