[MD] The MOQ by the moqists Part 2.

[Mary]

Hi Bo and all,

The 'metaphysics' of the MoQ is Pirsig's carefully constructed intellectual
explanation of a bigger insight he had of something which cannot be fully
expressed intellectually.  In the same way you could say the canons of
Catholicism, for instance, are not God himself, but do represent a method of
understanding God, the MoQ is not Quality itself, but a method of beginning
to climb up out of SOM and seek a deeper understanding of Quality.  

The hierarchy of Levels, the concept of 'patterns of value', and the idea
that Quality 'has' things and not the other way around, are guides or
'hints' only, pointing to a shift in how Pirsig would like us to see
reality.  They represent a new belief system, and in my view, a new
fundamental belief system is, by definition, equivalent to a new Level.  I
am not suggesting that every new religion, for instance, is a new Level.
These are belief systems with a small 'b', because if you examine any of
them no matter how different their surface appearance, they are all
underpinned by a core set of like underpinnings.  The varieties of Social
Level religion can be likened to differing scientific theories for observed
experience.  You can choose to back one theory over another, but everyone on
all sides still has to account for the observation as 'truth'.    

The Pirsig Levels are SOM representations of the indefinable insight Pirsig
had early on.  They are his intellectual construction after the fact
designed to give meaning and intellectually satisfying explanations to what
he experienced.  I think the degree to which one grasps this is the degree
to which one will be able to transcend the SOM by which the MoQ is
described.  Taking the explanations too literally results in the
'SOMization' of the MoQ, reducing it to just another Intellectual,
subject-object based method of understanding.  It's a good start, but is not
the whole thing.  An example of this might happen the first time you are
exposed to the MoQ.  At first reading, one might jump to the conclusion that
the Levels are buckets where you can put like things.  Rocks go in the
inorganic, all thinking goes in the intellectual, etc.; but, a closer
reading reveals that this is not what Pirsig is saying, and thought the
bucket analogy seems to be a complete logical fit with Pirsig's
explanations, to see them that way is to miss much of Pirsig's insight.

Thanks for your comments Bo.  

Mary

> Hi again Mary
> 
> You had uttered this (about the MOQ) in part 1.
> 
> > .... it was the new metaphysical twist that said the subject-object
> > world we perceive really IS all there is and it is good - and not
> just
> > good, but the only good. And if any group before had ever said, "no
> > it's not" (which Pirsig says there were and they did), then they were
> > proclaimed wrong by this new Intellectual "freedom" which shifted the
> > world under our feet and declared boldly otherwise
> 
> And I had declared my unconditional agreement something I'm not
> going to withdraw, only that declaring the world - or reality - "to be
> something" is barren, there must be a contrast of some kind, thus not
> until the DQ/SQ did the Quality Reality become manifest.
> 
> > Lest you get the wrong idea, I'm not saying anything about my own
> > value judgments here, I'm just pointing out that at the time, the
> > advent of the Intellectual Level had to have been a refreshing
> > relief for all those closet religious doubters who were daily
> > persecuted, the early scientists who wanted to learn how things
> > "really" worked as opposed to how God said they worked, and all
> > those oppressed by the tyranny of inherited rather than earned
> > privilege, caste, or rank.
> 
> General agreement. As I said the Western intellectual level rose out of
> the social level in the form of the Greek Mythology and we don't hear
> about Myth fundamentalist "assassins" out to kill the infidel
> philosophers, it looks like a walk-over, the multi-theism was easily
> overcome, but over "at the other shore that form was replaced by the
> mono-theism and THAT is to social value what SOM is to intellectual
> value: absolutely petrified. Now after the Medieval Times which was a
> kind of hibernating for intellect it returned with the Renaissance and
> then - in Europe - met with social value anew but now in the form of
> monotheism religion and then scenery that you describe above took
> place. However Christendom was intellect-influenced it was that that
> made it split with Judaism and it "grudgingly" allowed intellect to
> take
> over by and by. Not so with is cousins Judaism and particularly Islam
> but that is another matter.
> 
> > The Intellectual Level sought to erase the inherent fallacies of the
> > Social, and it worked pretty well. For the first time it gave us a
> > metaphysical basis from which to combat the insidious malaise of
> Social
> > celebrity, unfairness, illogical "magical" thinking and all sorts of
> > other Social stuff like that all in one fell swoop.
> 
> Yes, yes, spot on, still the social - like intellect - has thousands
> facets.
> not only the religious. According to LILA the West wasn't won until
> after WW1, it was the gruesome aspects of social virtues like
> obedience, heroism, valor faced with modern weaponry that turned the
> tables. But of course there were much references to religion. "Gott mit
> Uns" blessing the weapons ...etc.
> 
> > But it had its downside.  If you are daily suffering under the yoke
> > of social repression that prevents you from expressing freedom of
> > thought or freedom of action, or says that your social status is
> > determined by some arbitrary decision made by people who are
> > arbitrarily powerful, then the tenants of the Intellectual Level are
> > a godsend.  You now have a coherent belief system upon which to base
> > opposing arguments. But this belief system proved to be an
> > incomplete solution and turned out to result in a new and different
> > mental prison all its own. I shall explain.
> 
> > If you no longer believe that God has moral authority then that
> > authority falls to man.  Maybe that's a good thing, but if it
> > defaults to man, then moral authority is just whatever you say it
> > is, and if you combine that with another Intellectual tenant that
> > says we are all created equal, then there is no moral authority at
> > all.  My morals are just as valid as yours.
> 
> Agree, but one remark. You know intellect began with search for
> principle that transcended the mythological gods' reality, so
> principles
> has followed intellect: Principles of human rights, worth and freedom,
> and the all these are meant to prevent the vicissitudes of "man", so
> intellect 's objectivity is always opposed to "whatever you say". And
> yet
> as you say intellect could not objectify its principles, they remained
> subjective. It was in a jam has always been.
> 
> > If you no longer believe the world was created by an omniscient
> > creator for your benefit, and you fail to replace that belief with
> > something else, the world _must_ be nothing more than the subjects
> > and objects you see.  This approach has benefits.  You can do
> > science and expect predictable, non-arbitrary results, but it also
> > means you've raised the value of the objective world to the
> > equivalent of 'the good'.  If there is nothing else, yet you are
> > aware of a sense of 'betterness', then 'the good' must be a quality
> > that inheres in the object.  The object has quality.  Quality does
> > not have the object, and as we all know, it's all down-hill from
> > there.
> 
> You really "take off here, but it sounds right, intellectual humankind
> had to rely on science to guide "his" ways, but  that "god" does not
> offer much of moral guidance not compared with what the social GOD
> could, no salvation or afterlife, yet the existentialism philosophers
> insisted that we had to reconcile ourselves with it .
> 
> > Both the Social and the Intellectual Level, then, can be seen as
> > differing metaphysical belief systems, differing 'patterns of
> > value', and I would submit that beginning with the Social Level,
> > differing metaphysical world-views of this sort were and will
> > continue to be the engine driving the formation of themselves and
> > any new levels which may be to come.
> 
> Now THIs is something I have forwarded many times - the levels as
> metaphysics  - it makes lot of sense, the inorganic and biological can
> with SOMish criteria difficulty be called so because of metaphysics are
> supposed to be mindish constituents, but in a MOQ context however
> ....
> 
> > That Bo insists the MoQ, while 'of' or spawned by Intellectual
> > Values is not one itself, is because he is following Pirsig's model.
> >  It says this.  A new level germinates within its parent, but as it
> > matures it can be seen in hindsight to come into conflict with the
> > values of its parent; and when it does, and when it has achieved
> > sufficient static latching to persist, it can be seen to constitute
> > its own separate set of patterns of value.  As Pirsig says, these
> > are always in conflict with the values of the parent, seek to oppose
> > and dominate it, yet clearly depend upon it for existence.  In this
> > context, The MoQ can clearly be seen as such in its relationship
> > with the Intellectual.
> 
> This is excellent Mary, knowing that the true MOQ is understood
> (something you show by this about its level-like relationship with
> intellect: Out of intellect in intellect's SOM role, becoming the
> reality
> that has intellect as its subset) gives me great peace of mind.
> 
> Hugs
> 
> Bodvar.
> 
> 
> PS
> NB =Nota Bene (Latin I believe) "notice well". Maybe not used in
> English
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html