[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[John Carl]

Arlo,

We mainly agree, but I'd like to add a caveat:

[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.
>

John:

My caveat is that "only motivation" is too narrow.  I think Horse's
explanation of "ego" is astute.

Not only the conscious ego-motivation to perpetuate one's own view, but the
deeper subconscious aversion to the true MoQ which is that SOM perpetuates
the ego and the ego is aware of this and wants to keep on rockin' and
rollin'.

The teaching that all of intellectual patterning is dependent upon a subject
helps keep the little monster at the center of being.



>
> 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).
>
>

John:  big smile.



> [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.
>
>
John:

Good example, and one I take issue with as well.  But as I've pointed out,
Pirsig's own postulation of this division is clearly presented as
provisional - "his best guess" and thus open to further discussion as we've
been doing.

Whereas the SOL rips the soul outta the MoQ completely - crowning intellect
alone as the apex of evolutionary development.


Go Arlo,

John