[MD] The MOQ by the moqists Part 2.

[skutvik at online.no]

Arlo, Craig, Mary, All.

[Mary]
> The Pirsig Levels are SOM representations of the indefinable insight
> Pirsig had early on. 

Wish Mary would limit herself. Pirsig levels? The levels are static 
levels of quality. Full stop!

[Craig]
> However, it does not follow that SOL = SOM nor that SOL cannot be part of
> the MoQ. (Nor that insights are either definable or indefinable.)

Right you are Craig, The SOM minus the "M" rank can well be part of  
MOQ's static range, in fact it is the  highest and best part. Come 
forward more forcefully Craig

[Arlo]
> Not only this, SOM is the specific metaphysical position that posits that
> "subjects and objects" is the fundamental metaphysical division of
> "reality". How on earth can the "Pirsig levels" be SOM? That's inane.

How dense can one be? The subject/object distinction  - the ability to 
tell whats objective from what's subjective is MODERNITY itself and 
must be held high in the role of MOQ's highest static level. As SOM it 
leaves us with an amoral reality, inside MOQ's moral universe it is the 
highest static moral. 

> So here's some remediation. SOM = a particular metaphysical view that
> holds the subject/object division to be the primary metaphysical
> division of "reality". MOQ = a particular metaphysical view that holds
> that the dynamic/static division is the primary metaphysical division
> of "reality". These are both "intellectual patterns", and both inform a
> particular response to experience.

The intellectual level is a MOQ level and cannot contain the MOQ 
without creating a logical impasse. When it comes to (try to) disprove 
the SOL no argument too weird ... but in vain. 
 
> SOL, "subject-object logic", is one of those terms that, I gather, means
> "logic derived from operating within an SOM orientation". There is no
> "necessary SOL" needed to convey the MOQ, that's about as idiotic and
> incoherent a statement as one can put forth.

... and no language too base, but the SOL will not go away because it 
IS the MOQ

> The MOQ as written by Pirsig does not make use of SOL, because the author
> is not operating from within an SOM view. 

Course he isn't. The only correct thing you have said. He makes the 
SOM a quality subset.  

> Of course, you could say that "language", with its "subject" and "objects"
> makes all discourse "SOL", but that's ridiculous. It would be just as true
> that "language" with its "verbs" and "time" makes all discourse ATL
> (active-temporal logic).

No, Arlo, the language argument is your Ad Hoc invention so you could 
ridicule something. 

> There is really only one thing the fuels the "SOL", and that is a loathing
> of "intellect". The view that this is some sort of ipso facto cancerous
> lesion atop an otherwise moral and harmonic existence. And that those
> horrid, evil interlictials with their black teeth and dirty fingernails
> are responsible for all the worlds ills. 

Now there is something. Not loathing Q-intellect but the SOM it had 
developed into while it was "leading edge", but once robbed of its 
metaphysical rank all is well. 

> Ah, if only we could get rid of that damned intellect, all would be
> glorious! So instead of following Pirsig's brilliant insight to remedy a
> blindspot in the dominant intellectual paradigm, we simply rage against
> the intellectual level as faulty and vile. 

Rid of! No way, but once SOM has been stripped down to size, i.e. 
become the static intellectual level .... again ...  all is well. About the 
MOQ as an intellectual level, reforming intellect from within is 
untenable the reformation must be imposed on it. As if inorgany, 
biology and society can be "improved". Come to your senses Junior.

Bodvar