[MD] The MOQ by the moqists Part 2.

[Platt Holden]

Hi Mary,

Well said and exactly right.

Thanks for posting. A "keeper."

Platt

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Mary <marysonthego at gmail.com> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
>
> 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
>