Hi Roger, Platt
Roger, I was right when I asked for your help. I think your post has
been very useful to put the discussion back on a good track.
Actually, I agree that there is a warning on the map. Maybe the one you
offer is a bit different by the one on my map. For example: IMO even the
assumption that reality is indivisible, dynamic and flowing is part of
the map.
It makes me remember when Pirsig says that actually the cutting edge is
at our shoulders and all we can see is the past. Like in my favorite
poem of Eugenio Montale I already offered it in the past:
"Maybe one morning walking in air
of dry glass, I'll turn and see the miracle occur -
nothingness at my shoulders, the void
behind me - with a drunkard's terror.
Then, as on a screen, the usual illusion:
hills houses trees will suddenly reassemble,
but too late, and I'll quietly go my way,
with my secret, among men who don't look back. "
How can we say that at our shoulders there is DQ or sQ or anything else?
Actually, there is the nothingness of future.
Anyway, I perfectly agree with you that I was discussing the map and not
reality. I guessed it is so obvious for all the MOQers that there 's not
the need to write it on the bottom of every post.... well, you are used
to do it with your famous "ICBW".
Actually, what can we discuss about? Just about maps. And this is not so
degenerative, as you claim. I perfectly agree with Platt, here.
There's a mot here in Italy: All roads lead to Rome. In MOQ's terms:
every map is a map of reality. After all, we must go to Rome, willing
or not. Isn't it moral to follow the best map available? And isn't it
even more moral the attempt to write a better map? We know how to state
if a map is good or not: "The tests of truth are logical consistency,
agreement with experience, and economy of explanation". If the map will
lead us to Rome... it's a good map. This is the "pragmatic" side of the
MOQ.
Actually your words:
> Marco, everything you say and quote regarding the MOQ is
> correct according to this metaphysical map.
> You rightly point out that Pirsig's first division is
> between Dynamic and static, and that he then divides
> the static patterns into four discrete levels, and he explains
> the emergence of the levels via a process of evolution of
> Quality.
are more than what I expected to read.
>
> Now, let me go to our two infamous questions:
>
> Q1) Are all patterns of value also intellectual patterns?
>
> A) Hmmmm, according to the MOQ map, there are four discrete
> types of patterns. So the answer must be "NO"..... Ooops, hold
> on a second, there is a warning on the bottom of the map. The
> warning is part of the map and it specifically states that divisions
> of reality and maps such as this one are "intellectual constructs."
> So the answer is that on one level "no," but from
> a broader perspective, every division and explanation on this map
> is intellectual in nature. So on the higher level, the answer is yes.
> The latter answer is more inclusive of all the information on the
> map.
A little forced. IMO the warning is part of the map, and not a broader
perspective (that's one of the reasons for this map to be good). Anyway,
according to the WHOLE map my answer was, and is: YES, ALSO.
> Q2) Were the 4 levels discovered or created?
>
"Created" is the only possible answer, I guess. But again, as "The tests
of truth are logical consistency, agreement with experience, and economy
of explanation", the map is true as long as it respects those terms.
Thanks again for your help.
Marco.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
