[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[Mary]

Hi X Acto,

You raise some objections.  

> you ignore that Pirsig said that science is the
> intellectual pattern appointed to take charge of society.
>
[Mary Replies] 
No one argues with this.
 
> SOL interpretation however has not been supported by other philosophers
> work,

[Mary Replies] 
So this alone makes it wrong?

It is not
> consistant
> with many current scientific theories

[Mary Replies] 
It is not attempting to be consistent with scientific theories.  Science is
not equipped to investigate Morality, Quality, or Values, in the same way
that Catholicism is not equipped to say anything much about physics (though
it certainly did try at one point).  There is a clear analogy here.  After
attempting to first eradicate then dominate science, Catholicism finally had
to admit the inevitability of science and has reached an uneasy truce.  The
SOM-as-ILevel may someday end up in the same uneasy 'truce' with the MoQ.


, and the big failing, that it
> does NOT
> expand intellect and it's relationship with society it is not useful in
> everyday
> life.


[Mary Replies] 
It will probably follow the same course as the Catholic vs. science debate
above, but at the moment it seems that the Intellectual Level is still
fighting hard to dominate or absorb the MoQ - bring it into the amoral fold
and by doing so emasculate it.  An MoQ defined (and thus controlled) by SOM
is no longer the MoQ just as science controlled by the church is no longer
science.

> You keep making broad general claims but have yet to produce any
> support
> for those claims. In fact your outright refusal to is more an outright
> inability to.
> 
> What SOL DOES DO
> 
> It enables objectively dominated thinking people to justify the idea of
> an absolute truth.
> It justifies their belief that they are superior.
> And it does not require a rational explaination for it
> but one persons interpretation of anothers work.
>
[Mary Replies] 
To answer these charges, I can turn your own words back against your own
assertion.  "You keep making broad general claims but have yet to produce
any support for those claims. In fact your outright refusal to is more an
outright inability to."  Does this get us anywhere?  What you want is a
SOMish explanation of something that is inherently outside of SOM.  Again,
what does a Catholic explanation of physics really tell us about the science
of physics?  What does a SOMish explanation of the MoQ tell us about the
MoQ?

Best,
Mary
 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "skutvik at online.no" <skutvik at online.no>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Fri, June 25, 2010 1:29:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics
> 
> Horse.
> 
> 22 June:
> 
> You wrote
> > If you could come up with a single coherent argument then you might,
> > possibly, get somewhere but so far even that seem unattainable.
> 
> As a first installment I would like to pursue Platt's a bit further
> 
> Platt originally:
> > > > Check the full quote: "Now that intellect was in command of
> society
> > > > for the first time in history, was this the intellectual pattern
> it
> > > > was going to run society with?" (Lila, 22) Note "intellect" in
> command
> > > > of society, i.e., the intellectual level. One, not many.
> 
> Arlo:
> > > Yes, check the full quote. "was this [SOM] the intellectual pattern
> > > it was going to run with". Thanks for proving my point. SOM is one
> > > particular intellectual pattern.
> 
> >From then on Arlo just kept parroting:  "THIS intellectual pattern" as
> if
> SOM is a Western intellectual variety and that there are lots of non-
> S/O intellectual patterns. I would like to start at some earlier point
> (LILA's Chapter 22).
> 
>     Now, it should be stated at this point that the Metaphysics of
>     Quality supports this dominance of intellect over society. It
>     says intellect is a higher level of evolution than society;
>     therefore, it is a more moral level than society.
> 
> See the "intellect" he speaks about is the higher level no mere
> pattern..
> 
>     But having said this, the Metaphysics of Quality goes on to say
>     that science, the intellectual pattern that has been appointed to
>     take over society, has a defect in it. The defect is that subject-
>     object science has no provision for morals. Subject-object
>     science is only concerned with facts. Morals have no objective
>     reality.
> 
> This says that science have "no provision for morals", but that is what
> charachterises the entire intellect. The only place you find morals is
> at
> the social level which is the (traditional) moral level par excellanec
> (religions) Ergo intellect = S/O.
> 
>     You can look through a microscope or telescope or
>     oscilloscope for the rest of your life and you will never find a
>     single moral. There aren't any there. They are all in your head.
>     They exist only in your imagination. From the perspective of a
>     subject-object science, the world is a completely purposeless,
>     valueless place. There is no point in anything. Nothing is right
>     and nothing is wrong. Everything just functions, like machinery.
>     There is nothing morally wrong with being lazy, nothing morally
>     wrong with lying, with theft, with suicide, with murder, with
>     genocide. There is nothing morally wrong because there are
>     no morals, just functions.
> 
> This reinforces the amorality of the intellectual level.
> 
>     Now that intellect was in command of society for the first time
>     in history, was this the intellectual pattern it was going to run
>     society with? As far as Phaedrus knew, that question has
>     never been successfully answered. What has occurred instead
>     has been a general abandonment of all social moral codes,
>     with 'a repressive society' used as a scapegoat to explain any
>     and every kind of crime. Twentieth-century intellectuals noted
>     that Victorians believed all little children were born in sin and
>     needed strict discipline to remove them from this condition.
>     The twentieth-century intellectuals called that 'rubbish.' There
>     is no scientific evidence that little children are born in sin,
> they
>     said. The whole idea of sin has no objective reality. Sin is
>     simply a violation of a set of arbitrary social rules which little
>     children can hardly be expected to be aware of, let alone obey.
> 
> Here is the original Platt quote where Arlo clung to the "THIS
> intellectual pattern" straw,  but it's plain that no intellectual
> patterns
> have provisions for morality, unless social patterns become
> "intellect".
> The "twentieth-century intellectuals" (now twentyfirst) dislikes
> Pirsig's
> blaming intellect for undermining law and order and - like Arlo - cling
> to
> SOM as just one intellectual pattern, but as shown - remove SOM and
> there is no intellect left - unless you resort to  intellect =
> intelligence.
> 
> MOQ as a new intellectual pattern - which is supposed to set things
> straight - is also untenable. Nothing that "makes provisions for
> morals"
> can enter intellect without being attacked by its  immune system, and I
> believe that is exactly what's happening. All "intellectuals" works
> overtime to reduce  the MOQ to another dee-da-dum philosophy
> While the mystics cembrace the Quality/MOQ.
> 
> So Horse, think and reason for yourself, no ruminating of the "Pirsig
> has rejected ...".
> 
> Bodvar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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