From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Tue Feb 10 2004 - 16:42:36 GMT
Hi All,
When Wim said that we should answer as to whether "'the MoQ' is
understood to be [Pirsig's] ideas which we can only interpret" based on
our definitions of an intellectual pattern, my first thought was that
while use of the possessive "Pirsig's" maintain's the intellectual
level meaning of identifying which ideas are up for discussion, it
loses the social pattern reference of indicating personal property. In
other words, thinking of the MOQ as an intellectual pattern, the MOQ
does not belong to anyone since property ownership does not exist
intellectually. This is why when Pirsig comments on the MOQ in LC and
other places, he often qualifies his statements or explicitly says that
we should not take his word to be gospel. He is not right about the
implications of the MOQ because he is Robert M Pirsig. His ideas must
be considered based only on their intellectual quality rather than
based on his social status as the Great Author.
The MOQ is a pattern of thought that anyone can participate in, but it
remains to be settled what is the particular set of Pirsig's and
perhaps other's ideas that are referred to under the banner of "the
MOQ." With the exception of Bo, perhaps we can agree that the MOQ is a
root expansion of rationality based on postulating Quality as empirical
reality that attempts to explain experience in terms of static value
patterns and dynamic quality. Fewer of us but most of us would also
agree that the static value patterns are understood in the MOQ to form
an evolutionary hierarchy of inorganic, biological, social, and
intellectual value patterns. Without these understandings, someone
could perhaps be talking about "an MOQ" but not "the MOQ" in my
opinion.
From this point, we (as well as Pirsig) try to reason out the
implications of such postulates. We (as well as Pirsig) can then say
things like,"If I understand the MOQ correctly, there is no such thing
as human nature," and we can be right or wrong about what the MOQ
implies. Whether we are right or wrong depends also on how we define
the levels, and how we define the levels is also clearly up for
discussion--a conversation in which Pirsig himself has participated in
LC and in his recent letter to Paul.
So in short, I think we can talk about "the MOQ" if we have a shared
understanding of what is essential in use of that term and we can also
talk about our own understandings and interpretations of what "the MOQ"
says and its implications in a manner that is consistent with the
following quote:
"Unlike SOM, the MOQ does not insist on a single exclusive truth. If subjects and objects are held
to be the ultimate reality then we're permitted only one construction of things -- that which
corresponds to the 'objective' world -- and all other constructions are unreal. But if quality or
excellence is seen as the ultimate reality then it becomes possible for more than one set of truths
to exist. Then one doesn't seek the absolute 'Truth.' One seeks instead the highest quality
intellectual explanation of things with the knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future
this explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until something better comes along. One can
then examine intellectual realities the same way he examines paintings in an art gallery, not with
an effort to find which
one is the 'real' painting, but simply to enjoy and keep those of value." (Ch 8)
Though "the MOQ does not insist on a single exclusive truth," if we
have no shared understanding of what the MOQ is then we are simply not
talking about the same thing at all when we say "the MOQ." Perhaps we
can agree that when we say "the MOQ" or "Pirsig's MOQ" we mean at least
something like the following suggested definition:
"a root expansion of rationality based on postulating Quality as
empirical reality that attempts to an intellectual explanation of
experience in terms of static value patterns and dynamic quality where
static value patterns are understood to form an evolutionary hierarchy
including inorganic, biological, social, and intellectual value
patterns."
Additions? Subtractions?
Thoughts on the idea of agreeing on an essential definition of "the
MOQ"?
Thanks,
Steve
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
MF Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 11 2004 - 11:19:53 GMT