Bobby, Corey, 3WDave and all,
>
BOBBY:
> "The real essence of MoQ and thereby its potential lies in the ability of
Moqers to be able
> to COMMUNICATE this essence to others , and for that purpose the
> Q-levels are vital and valid."
RICK:
Agreed... this is the potential of the MoQ.
BOBBY:
> "The central question seems to be : How can we distinguish one level
> from another ?"
RICK:
That is the question... it would be absurd to demand a perfect, "objective"
way to put levels in patterns. I am perfectly willing to accept that there
is no one correct way to make these distinctions. There's no RIGHT way, but
there has to be a BEST way....
BOBBY:
"...that is -what makes one level higher than the other?"
RICK:
No, this is a different question... For the purposes of this topic we can
just grant Pirsig the order of the level hierachy. What I want to know
is--- Even if the framework of the MoQ is coherent and compelling, can it be
of any practical value in Moral matters if assigning patterns to levels is
purely a matter of personal choice?"
BOBBY:
> "Thats the problem with Morals - they are so absurd -just
> can't seem to pin them down with logic or reason . "
RICK:
And yet... this is ALMOST what Pirsig claims the MoQ is capable of. He
carves up Morality with the analytical knife, puts it into hierarchical
categories, describes their interactions and tells us that "....we can now
deduce codes based on evolution that analyze moral arguments with greater
presicion than before. (LILA pg. 183)"--- Can we really????
>
BOBBY:
"This joker will show its face only when you
> are really desperate and alone in the night
> when you stare at the stars and ask the questions:
> Who am I ? What am I doing here ?
> What is the purpose of my existence ?"
RICK:
If this wild card is Emotion it does not bode well for the MoQ... You know
how divisive emotion can be (i.e. abortion controversy). If emotion is the
heart of the MoQ then I fail to see where it's "precision" comes from.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
COREY:
"It is not a matter of us granting the MOQ anything, but rather perhaps you
might say we are granted
one man's vision of how reality might be interpreted if one cares to
interpret it in the first place."
RICK:
Yes, but aren't we entitled... or even outright obligated, to probe the
VALUE of this vision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVE:
Pirsig is clear that this in not a "NEW" encyclopedia, rather it is:
"Static Quality is the class of stable or accepted values, patterns, laws,
customs, and theories
that societies have formalized and that change little over time. " Lila-pp
58 "
"This classification of patterns is not very original,.." Lila-pp 149
" A conventional subject-object metaphysics uses the same four static
patterns as the Metaphysics of
Quality Lila"....-pp 153.
RICK:
Yeah, he says things to this effect all over LILA and it helps to an extent.
The only problem is that the MoQ is supposed to let us examine morals
"...with greater presicion than before..." (see quote above). This
increased presicion comes almost entirely from the codes that govern the
levels and is therefore limited by our ability to determine which pattern
belongs in which level....
(try this)---- IF all we have to guide us in determining the proper
level for a particular pattern is the "stable or accepted values, patterns,
laws, customs, and theories that societies have formalized and that change
little over time" and the MoQ is only as precise as our ability to make
these determinations, THEN the MoQ is only as precise as the stable or
accepted values, patterns, laws, customs, and theories that societies have
formalized and that change little over time.
Not much of an improvement....
As for the stuff about Wilbur.... It's a little too late tonight for me to
be drawing diagrams, but I'll work on it tomorrow and get back to you.
It's all Good,
Rick
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:25 BST