[MD] the MOQ and its environment

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Kevin

17 Feb. you wrote:
 
> You make two interesting and significant statements; "Quality is the
> DQ of the MOQ" and "the misunderstanding of a QUALITY outside the
> DQ/SQ persists."

Thanks for calling it "interesting and significant". If you agree I'm 
not sure.
 
> I see in your statements, especially the second, a confirmation that
> no consensus exists among MOQ advocates on a precise delineation of
> the MOQ.

Was it you who "complained" about there being no place where 
one would find MOQ clearly outlined? Anyway, there are the 
books, but as such goes they are ambiguous. 

> A search of "quality is" in Pirsig's first book identified most of the
> following.  I'll take these to be a very good delineation of what
> Quality is.

>      Quality is a characteristic of thought and statement that is
>      recognized by a nonthinking process. Because definitions are a
>      product of rigid, formal thinking, quality cannot be defined.

No disagreement about Quality from a MOQ view (I subscribe to 
that) but many, including Pirsig, want Quality to be recognized 
from the intellectual level, i.e. that it IS an intellectual pattern. 
Okay, my argument looks circular, but - in retrospect -  before the 
MOQ while intellect was SOM (IMO), quality was something 
insignificant, subjective something. It was only after the MOQ we 
were able to see reality as a Quality evolution. 

Instead we have all these logic loops and bends about a 
QUALITY outside the MOQ and that SOM is really a quality 
metaphysics (a S/O division of Quality). Admittedly, intellect is a 
static level, but in that capacity no longer SOM. No, intellect is as 
blind to the overall Quality context as the rest of the levels, yes, 
intellect is particularly blind because there is a level relationship 
between intellect and the MOQ and like all levels intellect resists 
being reduced, it wants the MOQ to be another intellectual theory                

IMO

Bo