[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[Arlo Bensinger]

John, Ron, Horse, Ian...

[John to Ron]
A particular pattern, SOM,  evolved that has since dominated the 
level to the extent that now people mistake the dominant pattern of 
the 4th level, to BE the entire level. Tsk, tsk indeed.

[John to Ian]
... since by the definition [of the intellectual level] provided [by 
Mary], the entire level is immoral.

[Arlo]
Exactly. And I think this gets right at the only motivation for 
embracing the "SOL", to demonize "intellect". As I said a few months 
back, Bo holds onto the SOL out of a way of elevating "Western" 
nations (intellectual people) above what he dismisses as the "social" 
people of the rest of the world.

When you read Bo's posts (peruse the archives), you see a definite 
and undeniable "western elitism" that he uses to prop of the 
Euro-American nations as "morally superior" to the inferior people of 
the world forever dwelling in "the social level". Ironically, 
however, the same SOL is in turn supported by those seeking 
justification to demonize "intellect" across-the-board, for a variety 
of anti-intellectual means. Where for Bo, "SOL-intellect" is a way to 
justify the superiority of Western cultures, for Platt its a way to 
denigrate intellect in toto and blame it for all the woes and ills 
and evils in the world. For Bo its an means to supremacy, for Platt a 
means to regress to social domination.

Marsha, and I think Mary, have perhaps the best intentions in 
supporting the SOL revision, but that is one trapped back in the 
classic-romantic distinction of ZMM. That is, "intellectuals are 
squares", unable to see and appreciate beauty and harmony and art and 
groove. So Marsha has to convince herself that, despite her 
involvement in an online philosophy discussion, she is "not an 
intellectual" (if she isn't, who is?). So where Pirsig's intention 
was a "root expansion of rationality", to provide a means to expand 
rationalities view to include both classic and romantic, to correct 
intellect's SOM-induced "blindspot", they remain convinced that 
intellect only leads to dry, artless Professors (and not Mary Annes 
or Gingers).

[Horse]
Whether Pirsig is correct or not is irrelevant. He doesn't agree with 
Bo's position. Bo should defend his own position, in opposition to 
Pirsigs view on it's own merit and not dishonestly distort Pirsigs position.

[Arlo]
Exactly. Take it to its valid ground. Stand and say "Pirsig says X, I 
say Y, Y is better than X and here is why". No one that I have ever 
seen on this list would have a problem with this. Its a valid 
argumentative position. It is honest. It challenges the authority of 
"papal bulls". No harm, no foul.

I think Ron may have nailed it, though, when he remarked that 
stripped of its dishonest "interpretative" claim, the SOL is really 
one weak metaphysics. Apart from the aforementioned reasons its 
embraced, it has far less explanatory or revolutionary power as 
Pirsig's MOQ. I am not one to say Pirsig is right on every matter, 
and infallible, but I do think he got this one right. The irony, as I 
pointed out, is that those who use the "papal bull" argument the 
loudest are those that bend over like acrobats to try to claim 
Pirsig's approval.

It would be like me saying that despite Pirsig's comments that the 
social level be reserved exclusively for humans, he didn't really 
"mean" that, maybe he's too ignorant to understand that in his books 
he "meant" that animals and bees be included, and therefore his 
protestations can be safely ignored because I, Arlo, know that Pirsig 
"meant" for the social level to include dolphins.

[Ian]
He said "Kill Intellect". He meant to say it, he knew what he meant 
when he said it, but anyone taking those two words at face value 
distorts what he actually had in mind - what he intended, preferred, 
valued, etc ... which a few people seem quite incapable of seeing.

[Arlo]
You mean me, I think, but of course I don't think he meant we should 
all run out and get lobotomized. Of course I know he was talking 
about suspending our habituated ways of thinking and waiting for a 
dharmic insight or flash of dynamic quality. But again, this jives 
with Pirsig's intention to "expand rationality", to break the old, 
habituated, and in many cases SOMish, paths of thought and to return 
from the mountaintop with an improved intellectual repertoire. I do 
NOT read it as a condemnation of "intellect" and a charge to abandon 
reason altogether. Had THAT been the case, I doubt Pirsig would have 
bothered to write ZMM or LILA.