[MD] What is the MOQ?

[skutvik at online.no]

Ian 

On 22 April you wrote:

> SA, Platt, Bo,

> I'd also be tempted to disagree with Bob's simple statement to Baggini
> - at least with the suggestion that it is the whole story.
 
> Bo's point, quoting SA, does not feel like a breakthrough to me.
> Clearly the DQ aspect of the MoQ is not defined within it, because
> it's not really "defined" anywhere ... it's the ineffable basis any
> metaphysics must have - in the MoQ case a dynamic basis for its own
> future. 

Arlo said to you the 17th.

> You see the "problem", of course. Any system that "divides" the cosmos
> can't be contained within any of its divisions. By definition, it is
> above those divisions. 

It catches it in a nutshell and makes the assertion  that the MOQ 
is an intellectual pattern absurd. I leave Arlo here, but then 
Perella said he didn't understand the problem, the MOQ wasn't 
(only) intellect, but the whole static range plus the dynamic. If this 
means that he (Perella) doesn't regard the MOQ an intellectual 
pattern?? No, one seems able to admit that I'm right, but just 
disappears behind fogscreens.   

I agree with you that DQ isn't defined by the MOQ, but then you 
too start on DQ being the basis ...etc.  meaning we have the 
impossible QUALITY//DQ/SQ metaphysics on our hands again.       

> So Bob saying that the MOQ "is" the levels of static patterns it
> describes, is not inconsistent with saying that it is described as an
> intellectual pattern / on the intellectual level. 

I don't quite get these arguments. What's for sure is that Pirsig 
says that the  MOQ is an intellectual pattern that will set the 4th. 
level right after the somish patterns called "science & knowledge" 
had overwhelmed it. This is the core of all problems. He speaks 
about science having forgotten its social roots, but for the 
umpteenth time: It's the 4th. level that has cut it's social ties, thus 
"science" is an integrated 4th. level patterns, no foreign element.

> (As you know I've never had any problem with the MoQ including its own
> definition - of all the levels - on one level. It's a strange loop that
> allows it to evolve from its original historical perspective.) 

Lucky you!


Bo