[MD] Where does logic itself belong inside the MOQ?

[Krimel]

> Bo to Case [Krimel]:
>  I didn't catch your point, but I ask you to employ
> your intelligence on the issue at hand which is purely logical not
> particularly MOQish. Namely if Pirsig's Quality/MOQ meta-
> metaphysics that Steve wields is logically valid? That there is a
> QUALITY other than the DQ of the MOQ and independent of it? For
> instance if there comes a "metaphysics" that rejects the MOQ it is still
> a "MOQ"?

[Krimel]
It is a bit difficult untangling your hyphens to revel what is being
contrasted above but sure, there is QUALITY other than DQ. It's called SQ. I
don't think that a metaphysics that overturned the MoQ would be the MoQ. But
I do think it would be "a" metaphysic. Taxonomically the MoQ is a
metaphysic, SOM is too, so are eastern metaphysics and the Discordian
Revelation.

Steve:
Let's not confuse "THE MOQ" (Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality) with "AN
moQ" (some other metaphysics of Quality). Not only is some
hypothetical future metaphysics that rejects Pirsig's MOQ still
potentially a metaphysics of Quality, but SOM is already a metaphysics
of quality according to Pirsig in Lila:

"There already is a metaphysics of quality.  A subject-object
metaphysics is in fact a metaphysics in which the first division of
Quality-the first slice of undivided experience-is into subjects 
and objects."

[Krimel]
I when I think about a three way I usually think in terms of a different
gender and closer spatial proximity but we could make this work. 

I don't think there is a "THE MOQ" of even a "Pirsig's MoQ". First because
of the way Pirsig words things. The MoQ says... The MoQ asserts that...
Sometimes the way he phrases it, it is possible that even he doesn't
necessarily agree with it.

Second, Roland Barthes made a major stir in continental philosophy some
years back with a paper that proclaimed, in its title, "The Death of the
Author." He asserts that once a text has been written the author has no
exclusive claim on it. It exists on its own right, on its own terms and
every reader's interpretation of the work has equal standing with the
author's. It was a radical claim but I think Pirsig offers a good case in
point. In Lila he deviates a bit from ZMM and his discourse on the meaning
of ZMM is in many respects the discourse of a person different from than the
person who wrote it. This is a point Bo might exploit in promoting his SOL
and one I have not hesitated to use in expressing disagreement with Pirsig.

Thirdly, in terms of asserting whatever "authority" an author might have
over the ideas he has expressed, Pirsig has done an astonishingly piss poor
job of expanding, expounding and clarifying his meaning.

> Bo:
> For instance Quantum Theory predicts a pretty weird world (the
> "Schrodinger Cat" f.ex) but the physicists deny any "objective"
> Newtonian - even Einsteinian - reality" outside Quantum Theory (QT).
> Now, QT is only necessary for sub.atomic events, ordinary physics
> works fine otherwise. I compare this with the MOQ which is only
> needed for the ultimate view. For ordinary purposes its intellectual
> level - SOM - works fine, but Steve insists on a som-like "objective"
> Quality that the MOQ is just one possible explanation of.This is deeply
> wrong, MOQ's Quality Reality only exists within the MOQ.

[Krimel]
First I don't know that quantum theorists deny any kind of reality outside
their theory. If so why do some of them continue to assert that they are on
a quest for the Theory of Everything? I think most of them are well aware
that their theory is incomplete. I agree with Steve, the MOQ IS just one
possible explanation. It is "A" metaphysics not "THE" metaphysics, just as
Newton presented "A" physics, Einstein presented "A" physics and Bohr and
Co. present "A" physics. None of them talk about "THE" physics. Bohr flatly
stated something to the effect that physics is no longer about reality but
what we can say about reality.

Steve:
There is no such thing as "objective" Quality in the MOQ other than as
inorganic and biological patterns of value. Quality precedes this
objective-subjective metaohsyical distinction you mention.

Please explain how I am supporting an SOM-like version of the MOQ when
pretty much all I ever need to do in response to your claims is to
quote Pirsig. All your disagreements are with him rather than me.

[Krimel]
I'll let Bo handle that as I don't think I have a dog in that fight.

Left over Bo stuff:

[Bo]
All right I gladly accept your greater knowledge here, but you
misunderstand, the human biology is an advanced organism with its big -
neocortex - brain. The Q-biological LEVEL includes everything from plants,
bacteria, amoebas to mammals, and the lower strata of this level are 
pretty "hard-wired", if wired at all (no neural system). 

[Krimel]
Biologically speaking there is not discontinuity in the evolution of nervous
systems. Nervous systems evolve in response to selection pressure from the
environment. The human response to these selection pressures has been bigger
brains. Those brains allow humans a greater range of responses and the
ability to thrive in more diverse environments than many other species. 

So what?

[Bo]
I do NOT think biology runs any employment service, but I very much know
that the lower level becomes employed by the upper, thus the biological (in
its nature) computer has in turn been (still is )employed by the social 
and intellectual levels in turn,.   

[Krimel]
If you don't think that, then why do you continue to talk like that even in
your denial? What kind of job can lower level get with the upper level? If
there is no employment service does the lower level have to apply in person?

If the biological computer has been and still is "employed by the social and
intellectual levels in turn" how did they get the job? Can they live
comfortably on their salaries? How are they paid? What are the benefits? Can
they only be employed by the intellectual level after some period in the
service of the social level? How much vacation time do they get?

Getting clear answers is largely a matter of asking clear questions. Asking
meaningless questions tends to result in meaningless answers. I fear that is
a major part of the difficulty you have here.