[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[skutvik at online.no]

Craig, Ham, All. 

22 June 

Craig had said:
> > I wonder if there isn't a compromise between Pirsig's MoQ
> > & Bo's SOL (the metaphysics of ZMM?). 

I liked your "Metaphysics of ZAMM", but LILA is also strewn with SOL 
stuff, and thanks for not calling it BOMOQ, It is an interpretations of 
Pirsigs metaphysics .   

> > Pirsig emphasizes
> > static patterns of value.  Bo identifies the intellectual level with
> > Subjects & Objects.  But what if Subjects & Objects are seen as
> > static patterns of value?  Doesn't this bridge the gap between the 2
> > metaphysics?

Yes, yes, the SOL is all about it making the S/O a static value, it  
bridges gaps and reconciles differences galore. SOM stripped of its 
metaphysical rank - made into MOQ's highest static level - is the 
panacea that gives MOQ's its phenomenal explanatory power   
Thanks Craig, this is most promising and don't let the Great Inquisition 
stop you from promulgating this idea.  


------------------------------

Then Ham who wrote:

> Of course it does.  But Bo is not contesting Pirsig's concept of
> subjects and objects as "patterns of value."  He's positing the
> intellectual level as SOM -- a "metaphysics of duality" -- and he
> ascribes this metaphysics to an evolutionary period in history. 

SOM stripped of its "M" - only the VALUE of the S/O distinction 
remaining is no metaphysics any longer. Is this your mysterious 
accusation of me placing "intellect" as some overarching 
metaphysics?    

> He's seduced a few others who claim that all intellectual precepts
> reside in this intellectual level, which conflicts with the author's
> premise that pure, undefined Quality = Reality. 
 
Your take of the MOQ is pretty weird (your way of expressing 
contempt?). That "intellectual precepts reside at the intellectual level" 
is plain and in no conflict with the Quality=Reality axiom.  

> Look at how he interprets the original block diagram in ZMM:

> > ...in the preliminaries to diagram-drawing Quality is
> > "pre-intellectual" while "intellectual" is the object
> > becoming aware of subjects.

> Where in Pirsig's writings, old or new, is it stated that "objects
> become aware of subjects"?  What New Age nonsense is this?  We won't
> advance metaphysics by turning existence upside down on the theory
> that epistemology doesn't matter.  Nor will we "transform the world"
> (Obama-style) into a Quality Utopia by pretending that subjects and
> objects don't exist.

The "object becoming aware of subjects" was a slip of tongue, with my 
output I would be superhuman not to goof from time to time. So please 
give me a break. At least  ZAMM's above stands firm. The introducing 
3 levels before intellect makes no difference.  

> In my opinion, any philosophy that cannot accommodate experiential
> reality is meaningless, much less worth debating.  Sadly, I'm
> beginning to realize that no interpretation of the MoQ will lead us to
> the great enlightenment that its author anticipated.

We know that you think the MOQ worthless, my comfort is that you 
also find the SOL incomprehensible. That fits.

Bodvar