[MD] The Greeks?

[skutvik at online.no]

Mary, All

13 June :

Bo before:
> > Right, the Paul Turner letter's ending "... this is no Papal Bull,
> > perhaps just bull.." alternates between infuriating and humbling me.

[Mary Replies] 
> Even when you are 100% convinced you are right, it is considered poor
> form to say so, and far worse, poor strategy ....snip. 

We shall never know what happened between ZAMM (with its first 
sketch of a MOQ where there just was one static "level" - SOM -  also 
called "intellect") and LILA's, but at least he opened the PT letter by 
saying:  

    The question you raise about the intellectual level has troubled 
    me too.  

so he sensed that something was wrong. He also said that it annoyed 
him that anyone should question the term, it was like questioning  the 
"the". Now what does "intellect" mean in English and/or in most Indo-
European languages? Dictionaries usually have something about 
thinking deeply and logically, but my "Oxford Advanced" says "The 
power of mind to distinguish between reason and emotions and that's 
it:  Reason = objectivity and emotion = subjectivity. The snag is is "the 
power of mind" i.e. the presupposition that intellect is something going 
on in minds (Oxford's surely is SOM-based) but this  is easily taken 
care of. In a metaphysics that rejects mind and matter the "power of 
mind" has become moot. Intellect is THE ABILITY TO DISTINGUISH 
BETWEEN WHAT'S SUBJECTIVE AND WHAT'S OBJECTIVE. Voila! 

Now that the Intellect = the S/O distinction is "approved" - thanks to 
you who aren't so easily ignored as this person - we may turn to the 
Quality/MOQ issue which is  the other side of the same counterfeited 
coin.

 [Mary Replies] 
> Well, as you may have seen in his reply, Matt did not agree.  He
> viewed my statement as "obvious" no doubt to the point of yawns, but
> without explaining why.  I was about to drift off into saying what I
> think Matt meant by that, but decided better of it.  Matt thinks what
> Matt thinks and is welcome to explain for himself.

Matt has no real interest in the MOQ is's just a a metaphysical "spin 
doctor". 

> So here again is what's captured my single-minded attention: "For
> Pirsig to say that the Intellectual Level is thinking itself when this
> seems to surely fly in the face of all he has said before must mean
> something". What this means is that thinking itself _is_ SOM.  No more,
> no less. It's the only thing I can come up with and the result is
> overwhelmingly positive.  You are right, I am right, DMB is right, Matt
> is right, John is right, Platt is right ... _and_ most importantly,
> Pirsig is not waffling. A win-win.  No zero-sum here, John. 

> What say you, Bo?

I say that you have pointed to the exact consequences of the 
"Quality/MOQ" meta-metaphysics. If the MOQ is just one possible 
ordering of Quality then any ANY metaphysics is a "quality". Absolutely  
everything that is said is "quality": Pirsig is right, but so were Plato, 
Hegel, Kant   ... Hitler and Stalin were great metaphysicians. Ham's 
Essentialism that says that the MOQ is hogwash is another "moq". 
The MOQ must be saved from the latter-day Pirsig and his proselytes.  

Bodvar