[MD] humpty dumpty

Wed Aug 8 13:02:02 PDT 2012

Mark

8 aug 2012 kl. 18.01 wrote 118:

> Hi Jan Anders,
> I really do not find anything of substance in your post to me.  I
> expected more from you.  I thought this was a forum to discuss MoQ,
> not to say that a book had been written on such.  If you have an
> opinion on the reason behind the structure which Pirsig creates then
> by all means present it.  Otherwise sit on the sidelines and learn.

J A: RMP presents a reason for the four-level structure in LILA, ch 24 for ex. I don't have to put in the text here. No reason. You should have a copy yourself, right?
And, my suggestion was the answer to you, questioning the four levels:

> Mark asked:
> Why does Pirsig choose the scientific levels of inorganic, biological,
> social, and intellectual in order to create a metaphysics based on Quality?
> I know what they are, I am a scientist.  Why does Pirsig find this
> particular method of sorting helpful?

J A: My answer is that there use to be a reason, a cause, why a dichotomy, a differentiation is used. Pirsigs cause is understanding of evolution and different morals.
My contribution to the MOQ is that there is also a common question about Time, Thermodynamics and Money (Faith in Price and Economism as a more "hip" religion than ZEN) regarding the levels that can be interesting to explore.
See again in MALC ch 1 and 12.
Are your cause to build a new personal MOQ from scratch? From direct experience of indefinable Quality? I'm really looking forward to your useful reports from that trip. With the scientific approach.

> 
> That you would consider Zoroastrian dualism as a model for
> presentation is up to you.  I do not think you have any idea of what
> you write there.  I prefer the William Blake approach of merging the
> duality.  You also probably have no idea what I am speaking of there
> either.  So please do not pretend to be erudite in these matters.
> Stick to your novels which simply retell a story.
> 
> I have the MoQ to live by.  It is not the fancy metaphysics that you
> prefer to expound on.  Quality is a manner of interpretation.  It is
> that by which one reconciles one’s existence.  It creates a personal
> relationship with what is, and is therefore the creation of meaning.
> There is no distance here, in fact "distance" is not even an
> appropriate word to use.  I thought you had perhaps come some way by
> writing a book on the subject, but you seem to be going over the same
> old ground (and what have you found?).  Like I said, stick to your
> fictional novels and leave the philosophizing up to others.

J A: If you think you are in direct contact with "Quality", what is your experience that is different from and not appropriate to the MOQ?

> 
> As you should know, the levels are trivial when it comes to Quality; I
> am not asking for a replacement.  They are a form of explanation for
> something that needs no explanation.  My question (now to you) is what
> is it about the levels that help you construct a sense of Quality of
> the world?

J A: For example, it is ridiculous to arrange a social party as a biological event. "Survival of the fittest" is not directly appropriate at the social level where cooperation by different parties can build a new whole. 
Writing contributions at an internet forum is a social matter but is often using intellectual concepts. That is why it is not so important for members of the discussion to operate as "real persons". Experience of Quality does not guarantee that it will be Good, experience of Quality can also be destructive and malicious. "GOOD!" Senator Palpatine, Star Wars III.
  A thoruogh understanding of the four levels can help a person with some distance to balance his patterns in a proper manner so that the different levels fit to each other. The right material and the right biology put together in a social situation where intellect is freely and correctly distributed as an example. Not a bad receipt to begin with for a good life or a good membership on any forum for discussion.
  I would also suggest that you consider the fact that most of the members of this group sooner or later comes into opposition to you, even Marsha. Either you are expressing yourself in the wrong way or all the other has a hard time to understand your message. The quality of rhetoric is mostly the responsibility of the sender. In the long run there is always a possibility to use statistics to find out where the problem lies. In the very long run, survival of the fittest and mutations will decide.

> If you choose simply to say "it is written", then you can
> join the rest of those that proselytize on the “good book”.  As it is,
> you are providing nothing of substance to the discussion.  This is a
> forum for philosophy not for simplistic homilies.  You should know
> better; get serious.  Perhaps writing in your native tongue would
> help.  I can try to translate it.

J A: If philosophy isn't fun, why bother? I don't try to humiliate you, my hints are seriously ment to you. "The Family that Ooonts together Grooonts together", Don Martin. http://comicrazys.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/completely_mad_don_martin_p033.jpg
Yes, I can send you a code for a free copy in Swedish. Actually, I prefer to write in English as there are three letters less for my little finger.
What language are you translating into? Urdu, Marwari, Hindi, Gujrati, Rajasthani, Tagalog? I'd really like to have a review in those languages. They're chasing me every day because Amazon.com can't take their local currency.
> 
> Regards,
> Mark

Take care, of yourself, and your father.

Jan Anders
> 
> On 8/8/12, Jan Anders Andersson <jananderses at telia.com> wrote:
>> Hi Mark
>> 
>> You are really openminded and seem to have a certain distance to the MOQ.
>> 
>> Of course you are free to make up just any differentiation of the patterns
>> on oyur own; Good/Evil, Father God/ Mother Earth, Father Dynamic/Mother
>> Static, White/Grey, shades of/Black, Romantic/Classic, Man/Woman,
>> East/West/Russia/Africa/Baltimore and so on.
>> 
>> I think that RMP had a good reason to do the split into the four levels;
>> physical, biological, social and intellectual. I think it is quite well
>> described in LILA ch 24.
>> The four levels is further emphasized in my book as you might have seen by
>> now.
>> The four levels were very practical for messing up the situation for a
>> couple like John and Elsa. It was so fun to write "Money and the Art...".
>> 
>> If you want to replace RMPs levels with something else I would like to see
>> some practical REASON why yours should be better than his.
>> 
>> jan ANders
> 
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html