[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[skutvik at online.no]

ALL! 

29 June:

Horse quotes Mr. Pirsig:
> I'VE ALWAYS THOUGHT THIS IS INCORRECT because many forms of intellect
> do  not have a subject-object construction.. (My emphasis)
 
[Mary Replies]
> That's fine, but, as I have asked before, NAME ONE.

Andre:
> Many have been put forward Mary, also by Mr. Pirsig himself. Seems to
> me you do not see what you do not value or, to put it in Phaedrus'
> words: believing is seeing.

This pertains to my latest post for Andre but in case he and Horse 
miss it. Pirsig  gives some examples in LILA of intellectual patterns or 
"moral codes" he calls. I don't quite get the difference, all patterns of a 
given level is a manifestation of that level's supremacy,  anyway here 
they are.

    Third, there were moral codes that established the supremacy 
    of the intellectual order over the social order - democracy, trial 
    by jury, freedom of speech, freedom of the press.  

All these reflects the OBJECTIVE (over subjective) attitude. 
Democracy isn't just voting but the whole parliamentary system of 
three independent "arms" of power, Law-giving, Executive,and Judicial 
(here the independence comes in) Free press and speech are self-
evident.

The examples in Lila's Child of "non-S/O intellectual patterns"  was 
Pirsig just scraping together some impressive-sounding examples to 
counter the SOL that had started to become prominent in the 
discussion and maybe - just maybe - was presented a little bit 
awkward by Platt at least the last sentence 

    "To that end the MOQ is the best S/O answer I've found yet" 
    (LC p 396) 

And I believe it was this Pirsig reacted to. Platt did of course mean that 
the MOQ is out of SOM and had to use SOM's own tool to get free. 
Afterwards it's not SOM, to the contrary, it turned against SOM and 
devoured it..           

The alleged "non-S/O intellectual patterns" examples are either non-
intellect or very much S/O.  

"Mathematics" is mere calculation and not intellectual per se, but 
something mankind has practiced since they starting to add and count 
pebbles. 

"Advanced mathematics" like in proofs and theorems yes, but these 
are Objective demonstrations to show that it is TRUE ALWAYS - no 
SUBJECTIVE whim - that the sum of the angles of a triangle ...etc . 

"Logic itself". I leave that, I guess people knew that 2+2 was 4 long 
before the 4th. level.  

"Computer programming language". Language is manipulation of 
symbols, be it ordinary or programming and is from time immemorial.   


Bodvar



PS
I see that DMB has added Quantum Mechanics for good measure 
(Pirsig did not mention it) why not throw in Special and General 
Relativity and Newton's and Darwin's theories? None goes and say: 
"Over here are subjects and over there are objects" but they all are 
rational objective presentations that shy the subjective like the plague. 
They are based on the S/O distinction while - for instance -  the Old 
Books of the Bible, the Talmud" and the Koran are devoid of it.