Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Thu, 10 Sep 1998 00:49:29 +0100
Hi Donny and Squad
I'll (ab)use our unmoderated format some more.
You wrote:
>
> Here's how i see it:
> In ZMM pirsig uses a wonderful analogy of the man on the bech
> sorting sand. [...]
But the MoQ levels are not four piles of sand. You can't take a thing of
the world and put it in just one of those four piles. This does not mean
that the borders are fuzzy. It means that such a one-dimensional view
of the levels is incorrect. If the borders were fuzzy, it would mean that
a thing could be placed on the border between two levels. But many things,
including humans, are creatures of all four levels.
Sometimes, I get a bit horrified about the way you and others treat the
levels. Consider this: Reality does not have any contradictions. If it had,
it would sometimes deadlock like a Windoze PC. But it doesn't. The four
levels are an intellectual representation of this reality and should also
not contain contradictions. Reality doesn't stop now and then thinking:
- Hmm.. I wonder in which level I should put this creature.
Phrases you use like:
> You then begin sourting that sand into smaler piles
> Now that we've divided our sand into 4 piles we can then sourt the
> piles into a hierachal structure. We can start by age.
> And IntPoVs are no more than 3,000 years old, give or take
> (again depending on where you draw the line...
You're, we're, not in a position to draw the lines of the reality we're
parts of! They were drawn before it came into existence. It's like a computer
virus trying to rebuild the computer in which it lives.
> I could go on, but you can see how the hierachy is sourting itself
> (practically) from static on up towards dynamic. From order to chaos. From
> stability to change. From rigidity to flexability. So it's evolving
> "towards DQ."
Of course it's sorting itself, otherwise we'd have a proof for God's
existence.
> But are these 4 piles some sort of ontallogically absolute TRUTH,
> as I interpret Magnus as saying? No. Why not? Because they all come
> about through our sourting... AFTER we've picked up a handfull of sand and
> called it "the World".... AFTER the knowing subject ("Self") has stood
> itself over aginst the knowing object ("World")... And before and beyond
> all of this sorting is the man on the beach, together as one unit -- man
> *in* the ladscape, being-in-the-world... undiferentiated, pre-intellectual
> Quality.
I'd be very arrogant to say that the levels, not piles, are an ontologically
absolute truth. But hey, I am quite arrogant so what the hell? :-)
How can I say this? Because reality works without us being there to sort
things into the correct levels. The levels of reality was already sorted
when it got started, otherwise it wouldn't work. The day someone finds a
contradiction within the four levels as I see them, I might reconsider.
> Sorry, I got philosologically off-track. The point is: Pirsig
> gives us a split world:
How can you say that? He unites them.
> Well, I've got this far, killed the afternoon, and i still haven't
> gotten to where I'm trying to get to. Magnus, you're Lybrary of Alexandria
> question holds *great* intrset for me. Next time I post, I'm going to try
> and show you how you can turn that into an Open Question of tremendous
> philosophical value -- one hell of path through the high country.
Glad to hear it, I'll do my best to close it for you. :)
Magnus
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:46 CEST