[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[skutvik at online.no]

Andre,  All.

27 June. 

Platt to Andre:
> Yes, Andre. Let's see you demonstrate an intellectual pattern that
> isn't based on the subject/object division. I'm all tingly with
> anticipation.

Andre:
> Problem with this sort of thing coming from 'the Bo camp' is that
> nothing I, or for that matter Mr. Pirsig, Dan, dmb, Arlo, even Matt,
> John and Krimel says (and apologies to those I may have missed)say
> will be accepted.

"This sort of thing" is Platt's request to the "camp" that claims that
the intellectual level is choke full of non-S/O patterns to produce
just one such. Problems?! You bet. 

> I suggest you take a long, very hard and critical look at the MOQ
> itself!

 Platt has done nothing BUT take long looks at the MOQ as
presented in LILA and have come up with several SOL-supporting
passages, for instance the one I attach in entirety below where
Arlo had little to say but repeat the mantra about Pirsig have
rejected "the lie" better, because he has not rejected, just delivered
the cryptic "...if it has Quality...etc" 

> ...but I can hear your self-satisfying objections coming from a mile
> away. All of 'us' have at times tried to produce argument upon
> argument proving the fallacy of the SOL interpretation backed up
> with statements and quotes from Mr. Pirsig himself, James, Northrop,
> Anthony, Dewey you name it...but these are dismissed as if they
> never existed. Mr. Pirsig has written 'nonsense', has 'lost nerve'
> has 'lost heart'(in other words he is a coward!). Bloody hell! How
> dare you!!!

Your dockside swearing may sound impressive but I see zero point 
zero "production of argument" against the SOL interpretation which is 
the issue here. Only name-dropping and there surely are many more 
that has written about the mind-intellect witch patterns are "ideas". The 
idea of flint tools the first intellectual break-through ;-).         

Now in your own good spirit..... 

> Many of 'us' take a lot of time and energy to present Mr. Pirsig's
> views and insights as truthfully as we can. 

... here I "present Mr. Pirsig's view and insights" I hope for some
insightful analysis from the center of the MOQ think-tank.  

Bodvar

                                   -----------------

(LILA's Chapter 22). My comments.

    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 " ....you can look through a 
microscope or telescope or oscilloscope for the rest of your life and 
you will never find a single moral" within THE INTELLECTUAL LEVEL 
because it is S/O through and through.