[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[X Acto]

-
Hello Mary
  
Ron:
> you ignore that Pirsig said that science is the
> intellectual pattern appointed to take charge of society.
>
[Mary Replies] 
No one argues with this.

Ron:
I beleive this is what the arguement is about, interesting, because I understand
you as supporting the idea that scientific realism, or objectivism IS the
intellectual level, not an intellectual pattern appointed by intellect.

> SOL interpretation however has not been supported by other philosophers
> work,

[Mary Replies] 
So this alone makes it wrong?

Ron:
Not wrong, unsupported.

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.

Ron retorts:
Science IS equipped to investigate Morality, if one understands truth as a value.
The uneasy truce developed because society began to value empiricism over
rationalistic explainations. 



, 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.
Ron:
Emasculate? MoQ is a man?  has an ego? what is it with you and men?
Well you are correct, it does follow the empiricist/rationalist debate but SOL
falls into the rationalist side of the debate, along with catholicism.



> 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?

Ron:
Right with SOM as the intellectual level, the only explaination of the MoQ IS
an SOMish one and what does that tells us? nothing.MoQ tells us nothing
nor can it according to SOL.

Since the SOL explaination disagrees with the authors, Robert Pirsig,
and ignores a great deal of what he said, I'd say the onus is on SOL
to explain how it is better. I have, and several others have associated
RmP's work with Socrates, Aristotle, Kant, Pragmatism and James
topos theory, holism, Niehls Bohr werner Heisenburg and David Bohm.
Bhuddism, Taoism, and mysticism. I have, and would enjoy explaining
such support for the MoQ explaination as Pirsig presents it. Yet Bodvar
ignores and refuses to explain ANY support for his interpretation.
He refuses because any explaination is a rationalistic explaination
while Pirsigs is based in empiricism.

Best,