Diana and Moffers
now that the "to do" list is almost complete, what do you think about using
the rest of the millennium talking also about "how do"?
IMO we have the occasion to perform good static latches if we can clarify
how (part of) these MOQ problems can be solved.
bye
Marco
> QUALITY = MORALITY = REALITY
>
> 1.1 Pirsig shows that morality is a type of quality, but this does not
mean
> that the opposite is always true.
>
> 1.2 Pirsig has proven that quality is real. However, that quality is
reality
> itself has been left almost totally unsupported.
>
> 1.3 Pirsig has previously made it quite clear that patterns of static
> quality can all be placed within the four levels of the MoQ, but he also
> says that morality operates between the levels. Thus morality seems to be
> quite different from patterns of quality and it's a contradiction to say
> that quality and morality are the same thing.
>
> 1.4 For a conception to exist there has to be a counterconcept (ie, for
> there to be Good there must also be "not Good", for there to be moral,
there
> has to be immoral), but there are no counterconcepts to
> Quality/Morality/Reality.
>
>
> QUALITY AND DYNAMIC QUALITY
>
> 2.1 Pirsig doesn't adequately distinguish between Quality and Dynamic
> Quality
>
>
> DYNAMIC AND STATIC QUALITY
>
> 3.1 The various descriptions, definitions and examples of Dynamic and
static
> quality aren't consistent with each other.
>
>
> THE LEVELS
>
> 4.1 The levels are not defined well.
>
> 4.2 There is no rational way to resolve same-level conflicts.
>
> 4.3 Pirsig does not explain well how levels emerge out of underlying
levels.
>
> 4.4 The rational morality doesn't consider matters of degree. Eg, a
forestry
> corporation may be more moral than a log, but is it more moral than the
> entire rainforest?
>
> 4.5 The MoQ states that a higher level "trumps" a lower level, but has a
> duty to preserve the lower level. Thus, both sides of any moral conflict
can
> always be argued with equal support from the MoQ.
>
> 4.6 Using the levels as a moral guide can only work if we have complete
> information about an issue, but, as this is impossible, then the moral
code
> is impractical.
>
> 4.7 Pirsig's levels aren't entirely consistent with the way neurologists
> tell us the brain actually works.
>
> 4.8 Quality is just what you like, so the MOQ's morality is emotivism
>
> 4.9 The MoQ reduces all good to the good of utility.
>
>
> EVOLUTION
>
> 5.1 RMP's definition of evolution is not in agreement with conventional
> science. Evolutionary biologists do not rank humans above bacteria on any
> evolutionary scale.
>
> 5.2 LILA claims in various parts that Quality is the source, the track of
> evolution, and the goal. That breaks down to "Quality evolves from itself,
> towards itself on a track of Quality." This is a very difficult position
to
> explain. I believe Pirsig once explained that reality evolves from
> "low-quality" to "high-quality", but this explanation raises (at least) as
> many problems as the original position.
>
>
> FREE WILL
>
> 6.1 Pirsig's explanation of free will is flawed because in order to have
> free will you must have a subject, or else who's "will" is it that is
free?
>
>
> SELF
>
> 7.1 Pirsig doesn't explain how an individual being, a self, fits into the
> MOQ.
>
> 7.2 If we operate from the belief that there is no such thing as the self,
> and that Quality or Reality is one undifferentiated continuum, then the
> question of choice, freedom, good and morality does not arise.
>
> 7.3 If there is no self and the MOQ is reduced to being only a "feel good"
> Metaphysics of Mysticism then evolution in all respects should follow a
> linear progression by itself, without any setbacks or reversals since DQ
as
> an evolving force is complete and fully present at all times.
>
> 7.4 Since all conceptions, beliefs and their counters are aspects of
> perception can "static patterns of value" have any existence outside
> perception?
>
>
> SPACE-TIME
>
> 8.1 The MOQ describes an evolutionary process which appears to take place
> within fixed parameters of space and time, yet we know from physics that
> space-time is not fixed in this way.
>
>
> THEM PESKY INJUNS
>
> 9.1 The conjecture that Indians had some huge influence on American
thought
> is never supported well.
>
>
>
> Diana
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:29 BST