From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Thu Apr 24 2003 - 21:55:29 BST
Dear Paul and Platt,
Thanks Paul, for finding 24 Apr 2003 18:11:10 +0100 an inconsistency in
'Lila' now that I need it in my discussion with Platt. I hope with you,
Platt, that 'the fundamental Genie Pirsig has unleashed cannot be put back
in the lamp', but I wouldn't say that Pirsig's MoQ 'stands solid as a rock'
as you did 24 Apr 2003 10:01:42 -0400. If it did, we would have had
considerably less discussion about interpretation of Pirsig's MoQ on this
list (and possibly more fruitful discussion on its application).
You'll have to devise your own MoQ by adapting Pirsig's MoQ to solve
inconsistencies like the one you found, Paul. The problem is, that 'Lila'
contains BOTH extremely simplified versions of Pirsig's MoQ, that can
rhetorically convince people mired in Subject-Object Thinking AND more
sophisticated versions. You've got to find out for yourself which is which.
My solution is to avoid saying that any'thing' (including a living being)
'consists of' static patterns of value. Naming things depends on a
metaphysical division of our experience in subjects and objects. Subjects
name and objects are named. Names (commonly used to refer to objects) can
also be used to refer to static patterns of value, but we should try to
avoid confusing objects and static patterns of value.
A simplified MoQ reifies all patterns of value into objects and categorizes
all objects as if they were patterns of value. In this picture fits a
statement that apart from these objects (who 'can't by themselves perceive
or adjust to DQ') there are subjects (living beings), who can.
A more sophisticated MoQ denies the metaphysical division of experience in
subjects and objects. Our experience (which is not a distinguishable 'thing'
but the whole) consists of static patterns of value (static quality) plus
the value of their progress/evolution (dynamic quality). 'Living beings' are
no different from 'inanimate things': they are just a way of looking at and
naming evolving static patterns of value. DQ is not something 'objective'
which can be perceived of adjusted to by 'subjects'. It just is.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 24 2003 - 22:39:32 BST