[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 21 Jun 2010 at 15:48, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:

> [Platt]
> Perhaps you'll recall that Pirsig cautioned us not to take his
> Johnny-come-lately definition of intellect as a "Papal Bull.
> 
> [Arlo]
> This is just nonsense. I take nothing Pirsig said as "papal bull". I take what
> he said and I decide if I agree with it, or if I do not.

[Platt]
Me, too. 

[Arlo] 
> It is clear Pirsig does not regard the intellectual level as SOM. He has stated
> so outright. 
> 
> You can (as you do) disagree with him. No harm there. I disagree with him on
> some things well.
> 
> But you can NOT claim he ever meant this. He himself has said he did not.

[Platt]
He himself said, "It was this intellectual level that was screwing everything 
up." (Lila, 24)  His meaning is clear. 

[Arlo]
> So there is Pirsig's MOQ, in which SOM is just one intellectual pattern. And
> there is Bo's MOQ, in which SOM is the entire intellectual level.

[Platt]
There is Pirsig's MOQ in which the intellectual level (not just one 
intellectual pattern) is cited as the cause of the current moral calamity. 
"Today we are living in an intellectual and technological paradise and a moral 
and social nightmare because the INTELLECTUAL LEVEL of evolution, in its 
struggle to become free of the social level, has ignored the social level's 
role in keeping the biological level under control. Intellectuals have failed 
to understand the ocean of biological quality that is constantly being 
suppressed by social order." (Lila, 24)  

[Arlo]
 > They are two distinct ideas. You can argue all you want that Bo's is better. 
It
> may be. It may not be. That is an argument that is valid.
> 
> But you can't argue that Bo's MOQ is what Pirsig "meant". That is incorrect.
> And that is an argument that is not valid.

[Platt]
I can argue correctly about what Pirsig meant, citing evidence. That's just as 
valid as citing contrary evidence. Further, if you claim that the intellectual 
level is the repository of every idea ever thought, you might as well just 
close the book on the meaning of the MOQ because with that claim we're right 
back in the swamp of moral multiculturalism and relative truth -- not to 
mention that it would put the MOQ inside of itself, an absurdity.