[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[Mary]

Hi 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.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
There are many, many ways the Intellectual Level has been made manifest.
Science is only one fallout of SOM.  Is this a good time to explain?  

The Intellectual Level is the set of Patterns of Value that hold with two
key points.  

- SOM says Quality with a capital "Q" does not exist because quality is
nothing more than an attribute based on subjective opinion.  
- SOM says that the Universe is composed of nothing more nor less than a
collection of subjects and objects.

This is about as minimal a definition of SOM as I can get down to.  If you
take these two key assumptions as the entire basis of the Intellectual Level
I believe all else follows logically; and despite the argument that this is
too narrow or restrictive, I think you will find that everything short of
the MoQ and equivalents that cannot otherwise be considered a Social Level
value will apply.  For example, things like science, atheism, democracy,
empiricism, economic theories and surely a bunch of other things I can't
think of right now all follow as a logical result of these two premises
alone.  What can be misleading is that many of the concepts derived from
these two basic Intellectual Patterns appear to be in irreconcilable
conflict with each other.  That is surely true, but the conflict is only in
the details and not in the fundamental, unspoken assumptions upon which they
are based.  It is these two unspoken assumptions that are pervasive and
insidiously present in everything in the purview of the Intellectual Level.


As we readers of Pirsig know, however, there is more to the Universe than
subjects and objects.  There is Quality which is Statically exemplified by
Morals, Quality, and Values, and if you agree with Pirsig's formulation of
the Levels as Static Patterns of Value, then it follows that what is valued
by the Intellectual Level is in opposition to what Pirsig defines as valued
by the metaphysics of the MoQ.

> Ron retorts:
> Science IS equipped to investigate Morality, if one understands truth
> as a value.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
This is problematic and fraught with pitfalls.  I can neither agree nor
disagree.  You would need to define your terms.  In any event, as I view it,
Science would have to disavow its own foundational beliefs before it could
begin to investigate Values, Quality, or Morality.  An overthrow of
foundational beliefs is otherwise known as an overthrow of Patterns of Value
and upheavals of this sort, by definition, result in a new level.  It is
completely possible for something akin to "science" to investigate Values,
Quality, or Morality, but not as currently codified, and I imagine it would
be sufficiently different that one might call it by some other word to
distinguish the difference.  Perhaps a modifier in the same way we now
distinguish between Newtonian Physics and Quantum Physics.  That's what I
mean.

> 
> 
> , 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?
[Mary Replies] 
I'm at a loss here?  I'm guessing you think I have something against "all"
men?  I suppose if you can convince other people of that, then my arguments
about the MoQ can be devalued as a consequence?  As a debate tactic that has
a certain value, but it's not a very high.  - and your Mother wears army
boots, so there?


> 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.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
SOM cannot comprehend the MoQ because SOM says Quality is an attribute of
the object, not the other way around.  The set of patterns of value the
Intellectual Level ascribes to is incompatible with the tenants of the MoQ.
That is why the relationship between the MoQ and the Intellectual Level is
more a parent-child one than a brother-sister one.

[Ron]
> 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.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
You are free to explain your position point by point, but only if you are
prepared to defend it logically.  I would also like to just respectfully
point out that what little I've been able to gather about the views opposing
the SOM as Intellect camp also require one to 'ignore a great deal of what
Pirsig said'.  I fully understand that the MoQ can be understood in many
different ways.  Some of them have more Quality than others.

Best,
Mary