Re: MD What is a living being?

From: phyllis bergiel (
Date: Fri Apr 25 2003 - 02:59:33 BST

  • Next message: phyllis bergiel: "Re: MD Undeniable Facts"

    Hi Wim

    Sorry to jump right in here with a disagreement, (I've been lurking for a
    while, but had technical problems posting) but in response to your last
    line, wouldn't you agree that some people (and animals) are more open to or
    better at perceiving an event as being one of DQ whereas others are
    firghtened by it and retrench withing existing static patterns. Further,
    can't people change over time to become more open to DQ? Not all, and some
    regress, too.

    Don't know if that affects "living being" definition, but adaptability might
    fit well here - each level seems to be more adaptable then the previous one
    in terms of movement at least. Rock, plant, animal, human.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Wim Nusselder" <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 3:55 PM
    Subject: Re: MD What is a living being?

    > 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
    > 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
    > 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
    > 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
    > but the whole) consists of static patterns of value (static quality) plus
    > the value of their progress/evolution (dynamic quality). 'Living beings'
    > no different from 'inanimate things': they are just a way of looking at
    > 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 -
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    > MD Queries -
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 25 2003 - 02:55:07 BST