[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[Mary]

Hi Bo, Marsha, Craig, and all,

> 
> Craig originally:
> 
> > > >  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?
> 
> Again, fine, even if I don't quite like the "2 metaphysics", it was
> after all
> ZAMM that forwarded the "intellect=SOM" (SOL) solution and about
> half & half of LILA conveys this view.
> 
> Marsha comments:
> > > My answer to this quote would be NO!  RMP's recognition sent him
> off
> > > to the mental institution.
> 
> Interesting. By "RMP's recognition" do you mean the "Intellect=SOM"
> recognition? And that this caused his breakdown?
> 
> > > Having had such a realization, it's easy
> > > for him to say!!!  I don't think making an intellectual switch from
> > > objects (thing-in- itself) to patterns (ever-changing, relational,
> > > unbounded, impermanent) does the trick.
> 
> If you mean that Pirsig did not dare repeat the intellect=SOM in LILA
> because it had once sent him to the hospital? If so I agree most
> vehemently.
> 
> > [Mary Replies]
> > Agree with that!  Changing one intellectual construction for another
> > is to pay lip service.  Doesn't change a thing.
> 
> Hmm, had I just been sure what this means. At least, the "orthodox"
> intellectual level is much like SOM's MIND and consequently
> everything becomes "mind-intellectual constructions". But MOQ's 4th.
> level as SOM is a QUALITY construction!
> 
[Mary Replies] 
I took Marsha's statement to be along the lines of: just making the
_intellectual_ switch from calling things subjects and objects to calling
them patterns of value is still to replace one SOMish type analogy with
another.  It's easy to _intellectually_ call things patterns of value
without having any appreciation for how that might differ from calling those
same things subjects and objects.

Best,
Mary