[MD] The levels undressed

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Magnus

29 Aug. you wrote

> As you may have noticed, I am and have always been, almost obsessed
> with the definition of the MoQ levels. About 10 years ago, I wrote an
> essay in which I tried to capture my current understanding of them,
> which was a bit different, or rather more specified, than Pirsig
> presented them in Lila.
 
> But now, 10 years later, my understanding of the levels has changed
> somewhat, or rather as before, become even more specified. So I felt
> it was time to write another essay.
 
Great acclaim to you for thinking so hard on the MOQ, just a very 
general comments before starting to read in earnest. Remember 
Doug Renselle and his inorganic "obsession" and impenetrable 
diagrams and tables of quantum levels. I believe that all these sub-
sub-obsession stems from a failure to understand the enormous 
scope of the MOQ. The inorganic level is just simply the universe 
(call it physical or whatever) and is made up of - and upheld by 
inorganic value, it's not "atomic forces" or "chemical forces" that 
act om matter, this latter inellect (science) peering down on the 
rest of the static levels. 

> I know some of you doesn't care much, if at all, about the levels'
> significance, and I agree that the levels are less important than the
> first split of the MoQ. But they are the next most important part
> *and* they can shed quite a bit of light into what DQ does, or rather,
> *when* DQ does its most important job.

BTW, what do you see as the first split? To some it seems to be 
DQ/MOQ but is supposed to be DQ/SQ no?

> Some highlights:
 
> * Level discreteness ironed out.
> * 1 level divided into 4.
> * A new definition of what a level is and what it does (for the next).
> * In what situations are DQ most important?
 
> Let me know what you think.

Right, see you 

Bo