[MD] The MOQ by the moqists Part 2.

[Marsha Valkyr]

Mary,  

I wish I could paint what you've writen.  I will try harder because it is 
worth repeating.   


Marsha



On Jun 24, 2010, at 8:29 AM, Mary wrote:


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
>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>