[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[skutvik at online.no]

Andre 

19 June you wrote: 

> And if this is not a contradiction in terms I do not know anything.By
> presenting this quote you have DIS-proven your 'intellectual' S/O,
> SOL. The knife CAN (and has) moved differently. 

The above pertains to my two ZAMM quotes (1) " ,,,the knife of 
subjectivity" and (2) "...an intellectual scalpel" that shows that Pirsig in 
that book regarded intellect = the S/O distinction, I see that the "an" 
allows for a possible different intellectual way of dividing existence, but 
THAT is not the intellectual LEVEL but the levels before intellect or the 
MOQ (that divides DQ/SQ) and of which intellect is a subset of ... and 
cannot fit inside!!!  

As long as you regard "intellect" the somish way as our central 
processing unit (CPU) the MOQ is and remains a SOM subset.

> How is Phaedrus able to say this if there was NO OTHER WAY THAN THE
> SOL?!!...and there is no way out of your SOL ( as you claim). What a
> load of bullSHIT. 

This is DMB's alleged "devastating" argument against the SOL, 
namely that the the critique of SOM is intellectual, but Phaedrus' revolt 
was a Quality one. His early argument was that Quality is PRE-
INTELLECTUAL and that it's INTELLECTUAL fall-out is SOM. This 
about DQ as Pre-conceptual is DMB's (by W. James) falsification that  
Pirsig - desperate for philosophical acceptance - sold out his radical 
idea (for thirty silver pieces.)    

> He is not talking about an 'Eastern' intellectual pattern. He is
> talking about a dominating 'Western' intellectual pattern. The pattern
> he was brought up on and in. And he didn't like it. 

No comprendo.

Bodvar:
> We see the origin her, Pirsig thinks that the DQ/SQ divide is done by
> intellect's S/O-knife, hence the MOQ becomes something secondary to a
> greater DQ.
 
> Andre:
> It is blatantly obvious that you do NOT know what or how Mr. Pirsig
> thinks. Once again you are bulldozing your interpretation through the
> MOQ which is, to say the least, very confusing (at first) very
> annoying (at second)  and incredibly boring once one gets a slight
> glimpse of Mr. Pirsig's MOQ the way he would like it understood. ( and
> for good measure; the way he would like it understood is by reading
> and listening to all of his published stuff...and accepting it in the
> process). If you do not accept it...well read what he had to say about
> that in his letter to Doug Renselle...its in the archives.


Seems you have the tine of your life "contradicting" me, not the least 
bored-sounding.

> To QUESTION ! the idea that the MOQ is something 'secondary' to
> DQ...to suggest that they might even be equal... to suggest that they
> might even be equivalent...in other words the MOQ = DQ reveals your
> complete misunderstanding.

We already have a "metaphysics" that says that values are mere 
subjective, unreliable, whatever-you-like, namely SOM. Is this a 
"moq"? Must be if a QUALITY sits above the MOQ and that every 
possibly ordering is an ordering of. The intellectual level is a S/O-
ordering of Quality, but it is absolutely inside the MOQ. 

> I really have had enough of this Bodvar. You are very confused and
> should take a very, very long holiday.

Many thanks, come July the 5th I start on a trip by car, but I may bring 
along my laptop and if I find a network ..... don't feel safe. ;-) 

Bodvar