From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun May 30 2004 - 18:39:55 BST
Hi Platt
Yes, that's OK. Perhaps I am thinking
less that DQ is more complex, but its activity
becomes more complex, and as DQ is an activity
I see it as making a necessary appearance within
what we call consciousness, i.e. I cannot imagine
consciousness in an exclusively SQ context. Can you?
Rather that would be unconsciousness would it not?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: MD MOQ and The Moral Evolution of Society.
> Hi David M:
>
> > You could say that consciousness exists at all levels
> > and human consciousness is more complex
> > than animal, plant, molecular, atomic, electron
> > consciousness. More complex consciouness
> > may mean a greater reach, consciously occupying
> > a larger world, as we increasingly do. & I am
> > suggesting associating consciousness in the above sense
> > with DQ.
>
> I agree consciousness extends all the way back to electrons, but I don't
> think Pirsig associates consciousness with DQ, at least, I can find no
> references to that effect. Instead, he describes DQ as a creative moral
> force. So I presume consciousness, or interiority, to be a static pattern
> created to enable static forms to more easily respond to the DQ force. I
> don't think we can conclude that because the world has become more complex
> over time in our limited view that DQ, which created that complexity, has
> necessarily itself become more complex.
>
> > I take your point about mystics and SOM.
> > But therefore, what do you think of the intellectual level?
> > Pirsig suggests that it is the highest level, you point out its
> > association with SOM, is it highest yet flawed?
>
> I agree that the intellectual level is the highest, but the intellectual
> pattern that dominates the intellectual level in our culture, the pattern
of
> subject-object science, is flawed, as Pirsig explains:
>
> "But having said this, the Metaphysics of Quality goes on to say that
> science, the intellectual pattern that bas been appointed to take over
> society, has a defect in it. The defect is that subject-object science has
no
> provision for morals." (Lila, 22)
>
> Of course, that begs the question, "What morals?" The MOQ is all about the
> answer to that question, dumping the widely held premise that all morals
are
> simply social level patterns and instead, extending morality to the very
> heart of reality.
>
> Hope this answers your question.
>
> Regards,
> Platt
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 May 30 2004 - 21:10:56 BST