[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.
> 
[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?  

Ron:
Why yes please do, Science is only a fallout of objectivism?, oh...thats right
you place SOM at the biological level. Like an objectivist would.

Mary :
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.

Ron:
A very contradictory statement. First you assert that SOM does not recognize subjective opinion,
it doesent exist, then..re assert  SOM splits the universe in two, equal halves. 

I understand SOM as defining the universe in terms of objective matter, even the subjective experience.
Rendering subjective experience,as well, subjective and of little or no value. "Subjective" is
a perjorative term used to dismiss thoughts or reasons not based on objective truth and physical explainations.
On "fact". Not feelings emotions morals or value, objectivism.

Mary:
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.

Ron:
MoQ states that Value is experience, it is more empirical than objective truth.
SOM states Value is subjective. Objective truth is self evident.
Therefore a true blue SOMist would see the MoQ as a type of subjectivism.


Mary:
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:
I thought static unbending traditionalists were the problem. Close minded absolutists..
well, most modern scientists seem to accept the idea of matter as energy. In fact
it was proved to be so. SO it's been understood for the past 60 or so yrs that
objective reality really does not exist the way we commonly thought of it.
That goes right along with what Pirsig is saying. The reason why we thought
of it like that to begin with, Pirsig remarks, is we are taught to, by the culture.


> 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.

Ron:
Science has began making that transition for just about 100yrs, in fact thats
how science began, as a theory of explanation a first philosophy based on
empirical experience.

> 
> 
> , 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.
> 
Mary:
> 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:
Well, this explaination
is begining to sound very catholic.

[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.

Ron:
Please present what is claimed to be ignored.

I know there are many times RMP refers to the dominance of scientific objectivism, 
as it pertains to western culture, American in particular, as the intellectual level.
Simply because that is how popular cultural reference defines it as.
Which is also part of the problem. But It is consistent with everything he states
about objective truth being one of many kinds of intellectual value. While
taking those parts as saying that objectivism IS the intellectual level, means
ignoring the remainder of the work. I mean how do you square this notion
with the entire whole of RMP's work?
He was just nuts just doesent stand up.