[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[Mary]

Hello Everyone,

I have no idea where to start.  Away for a few days and the deluge of posts
is overwhelming.  I asked for an Intellectual Pattern that is not SOM based.
Of course, someone threw this one out:

> Pirsig:
> 129. I've always thought this is incorrect because many forms of 
> intellect do not have a subject-object construction. These include 
> logic itself, mathematics, computer  programming languages, and, I 
> believe some primitive languages (although I can't remember what they 
> are).

I am sorry, but I find this absurd.  I have mentioned before that Pirsig has
from time to time said things that made my hair stand on end.  This is one
of them.  Everything that has ever passed through your head or mine is 'me'
(or you) thinking ABOUT something.  Logic itself is entirely based in the
subject, the thinker, analyzing the object, the thing thought about.  Is
this not plain?  Mathematics is a way to objectify or quantify the same.  As
to computer languages, the early ones were not blatantly subject-object only
because they were not yet advanced enough - but that was the goal.  Now
days, all computer languages follow a strict subject-object model and that
the earlier ones followed a functional model, which is exactly the same
thing, only appear different because of differing in the descriptive
terminology of the day.  Descriptions of anything at all are examples of
subject-object logic.  A 'description' is 'me' in here, describing a thing
'out there'.  Nothing else.  If I am describing the Tao, I am objectivizing
a mystical experience in terms my logical brain can understand.  Nothing
else.  Whatever I describe will not be the 'Tao'.  Then, of course, there is
'language'.  All language is a form of 'me' speaking to 'you'.  Need I
continue?  Is this something we need argue about?  Really?

There is far too much volume for me to process each post made in the past
few days and reply directly, though as I encounter the most egregious ones I
reserve the right. I haven't even read anything from today yet, but I see a
definite pattern.

I do not agree with Bo about everything.  For instance, his idea (though
discussed clearly by Pirsig) that Quality was understood by pre-intellectual
societies.  Bunk.  The Social Level values 'morality', but as Pirsig also
says (thus contradicting himself) it is a 'morality' that has nothing to do
with Quality.  IMHO, if we were closer to Quality before the Intellectual
Level it is only because we had not yet chosen to give our tremendous egos
the free reign they enjoy with the advent of the Intellectual Level itself.
Social 'morals' kept the Biological ego in check just as they keep many
other Biological 'urges' under control.  When the Intellectual Level broke
free of suffocating Social/religious strictures, there was no longer
anything with enough authority to corral ego.  The Intellectual Level can be
summarized as valuing two Patterns of Value.  The subject-object logic we
have been carrying around since the stone-age and before, plus the
'attitude' that made it legal to question 'authority' - God or otherwise.
There was no Intellectual Level before that.  If you question accepted
authority you are violating a strict Pattern of Value at the Social Level.
You cannot be operating at the Social Level.  SOM - the Intellectual Level
is the marrying of these two concepts - ancient subject-object logic with
the 'new' attitude that snubs its nose at authority and says (basically)
'man is the measure of all things'.  These two alone, when combined, form
the entire foundation of the pattern of values that distinguish the
Intellectual Level from the Social Level.  If you don't agree, then you MUST
be able to explain exactly what pattern of values the Intellectual Level
holds that IS different from the Social Level pattern of values.  Does this
not make sense?

At least, we were recently able to clear up the controversy over whether the
levels consisted of Patterns of Value that "went off on purposes of their
own" from previous levels or not.  It was really a relief to hear Pirsig
affirm this once again in the recent DVD.  Yes, he said things that curled
my hair in that DVD, but he also said things that affirmed his PREVIOUS
statements.  If he had failed to affirm this one, then indeed all would be
lost.  You would have to accept an MoQ equivalent to John's, where the
levels are turned upside down and Intellectual Level values rule all else -
no, CREATED all else out of whole cloth.  How bizarre.  Or shall we argue
about that too?

Enough for one night. Perhaps later on I'll have the energy to explain why I
don't believe in "Intellectual bashing" in the way Arlo seems to think we
all do - even though this should be obvious, but is 'obviously' not.  A
hint.  The arguments I've heard so far of how it is that myself and others
in agreement with me are 'anti-intellectual' are actually unwittingly
anti-intellectual.  Priceless irony abounds.

Best,
Mary