[MD] What does Pirsig mean by metaphysics?

[skutvik at online.no]

Dave T. 

28 Jan. 

Bo before:
> > Course I reject empiricism, I reject all "isms"  and all academic
> > efforts because they are SOM, and now it may dawn on you why SOM
> > must be made into MOQ's intellectual level. It must be a MOQ subset,
> > or the MOQ will forever remain be a SOM subset -  a philosophical
> > "ism". And Pirsig actually made intellect a MOQ level, why he then
> > went and said it was an intellectual pattern  ...??? Will we ever
> > know? I guess not.   

Dave:
> Oh now I understand. You reject all "isms", all Western philosophy from
> the Greeks on down equating all of it to SOM. 


Great! After ten plus years it has dawned on you that PHILOSOPHY is 
the search for explanations that goes beyond the god-based 
mythologies (religious philosophy must be the oxymoron of the 
century) And as we know Western philosophy cemented into SOM, i.e. 
the Church of Reason which was ZAMM's original "target".        

> Given that, I still don't understand why all this fuss trying to
> incorporate "SOM" into YOUR philosophy. 

Don't you see? Reason's (SOM's) struggle to free existence from the 
mythological prison was a moral struggle and a great moral victory. 
This cannot be something that the MOQ overrides and the notion of an 
intellectual level where SOM once dominated and now the MOQ will 
dominate is untenable. If so isn't the mythological past also an 
intellectual pattern? And soon all existence is "intellectual" and voila,  
SOM - as idealism - is back in force.      

It is SOM's "M" which is the culprit, pretending the S/O to be 
existence's fundament leads to all kinds of ill effects, while the S/O 
distinction has lifted existence from religious tyranny to modernity. And 
this MUST be kept high and dry, and that is only possible by relegating 
it the position of the highest static level, after all it is subordinated the 
DQ/SQ configuration.  

> YOUR philosophy, as I and many others have made clear over the years,
> because you are clearly outside the realm of Pirsig's proposals. He
> suggested replace the foundation using the "good" piece and parts of
> the existing structure. You on the other hand reject all SOM, borrow
> RMP Quality insight, and are attempting to craft a new philosophy in
> your own image. I now understand your project. Good luck with that. 

Many may have this impression, but I try to keep Phaedrus project 
alive against Pirsig's distortions, and for goodness sake don't you see 
how the awkward intellectual level has pestered the MOQ and forced 
Pirsig to answer Paul the way he did. However his reparations were 
half-hearted and only kept the confusion going. MOQ's 4th. level or the 
S/O distinction or MOQ is just a more complicated SOM,. No in-
between position is possible. I refuse to believe that you don't see the 
"barn door" in front of you..

BTW. What do you make of the diagram in ZAMM (page 243 in my 
copy) where the subject/object reality  (Classic) is also called 
"intellectual"?  Doesn't this indicate that Phaedrus original insight was 
the SOL one? An note that no one - absolutely no one - applies the 
MOQ to anything at all (except me) for the plain reason that it is only 
the SOL interpretation that gives it its mighty explanatory power. 
Without it ....it's nil and void. 

Bodvar