From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Sun Apr 25 2004 - 13:51:47 BST
Hi DMB:
On Apr 24, 2004, at 10:12 PM, David Buchanan quoted me:
>
> I agree that the MOQ levels help us to understand people.
> My point was that dominance can't be primary because dominance is
> relative. Do you see my point that there is no way to say whether a
> person is more dominated by inorganic patterns or biological patterns
> than social patterns? How could we know whether gravity or breathing
> are more or less influential that some social patterns? (Actually, I
> guess I would say that inorganic patterns are more dominant than
> biological patterns which are more dominant than social patterns which
> are more dominant than intellectual patterns for every single person.)
>
> dmb replied:
> When we say a person is dominated by the values of a particular level,
> all
> the ones beneath are included.
I don't know if Platt could agree since he sees the levels as at war
with one another. How can they the intellectual level be at war with
the social level if it includes it?
> Since we all require inorganic an orgainic
> quality to simply be breathing, we don't often go that low. (Although,
> the
> character named Lila didn't have much social quality.) The idea of
> talking
> about people in terms of the level of values that dominate them, is to
> recognize those conflicting values in the primary place they manifest
> themselves; in us. And its a matter of opitmum performance, so to
> speak. We
> all are subject to gravity and must eat. We all have social roles that
> we
> fulfill more or less. But do intellectual values also significantly
> inform
> your values? That may not be true for everybody. I see people express
> hostility toward things intellectual all the time. I see people defend
> social level values in their stead all the time. The values people
> believe
> in and defend tells you what the person is made of, what sort of trees
> dominate his forest. And in an evolutionary scheme such as Pirsig's,
> this
> tells us a great deal about what level of development we've achieved.
I agree, so long as you don't *equate* the MOQ types of static patterns
with levels of development. I have no problem with the "idea of
talking about people in terms of the level of values that dominate
them." My problem is with defining the levels in terms of types of
people, i.e. the individual level, rather than understanding people in
terms of types of patterns of value. I tend to bring it up whenever we
come to a disagreement in this discussion group where I think clarity
can be gained by making that distinction.
By the way, when you say so and so is "on the ____ level," do you mean
it like Platt that the person is dominated by that level rather than
literally that type of pattern of value?
> Steve, I can't help but think there is an unspoken reason for your
> dislike
> of this basic idea. Are you in a confessional mood, perhaps?
Sure. What do you want me to confess?
> Why can't we
> say that so and so is driven by social values if Pirsig does just that
> dozens of times?
We can.
> I mean, your resistence to the idea doesn't really make
> sense and so I suspect there is something you're not saying. It just a
> hunch.
I haven't made my motives a secret. I am objecting to Platt's idea of
renaming of the fourth level. What do you think about that?
Thanks,
Steve
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 : Sun Apr 25 2004 - 13:54:04 BST