[MD] The SOM-MOQ relationship.

[skutvik at online.no]

Mike, Ian and all moqtalk. (I take the liberty to change the thread)

8 Dec. Michael Hamilton wrote:

> Hi Ian, Bo,

Pirsig:
> > > > >     "The Metaphysics of Quality resolves the relationship
> > > > >     between intellect and society, subject and object, mind
> > > > >     and matter, by embedding all of them in a larger system of
> > > > >     understanding. Objects are inorganic and biological
> > > > >     values; subjects are social and intellectual values.  They
> > > > >     are not two mysterious universes that go floating around
> > > > >     in some subject-object dream that allows them no real
> > > > >     contact with one another.  They have a matter-of-fact
> > > > >     evolutionary relationship." [LILA, p344]

Ian:
> > [IG] This is much quoted on MD. I think in the middle sentence it
> > should be read more carefully. He is referring to GOF subjects and
> > objects to make a point, not extolling or commending them to us.
> > More like "GOF SOMism would see Objects as what MoQ calls inorganic
> > / biological values. GOF SOMism would see Subjects as what MoQ calls
> > social / intellectual values" The only significance of subjects and
> > objects is their evolutionary relationship.

> [Mike] So long as it is taken with a large pinch of salt, I have no
> problem with that Pirsig quote. The problems come when it is taken to
> mean that the MOQ still holds that inorganic and biological patterns
> are really "out there", while social and intellectual patterns are
> really "in here". I know that you, and most on the MD, have a large
> supply of salt at your disposal and use it judiciously, but it is
> vital to see the danger of retaining the out there/in here distinction
> as something fundamental. It must be guarded against. I think we both
> agree that "in here" and "out there" are creations of the intellect,
> not something fundamental to all SQ. You might be suprised to learn
> that I also agree that the intellect does not always divide into "in
> here" and "out there" (S/O[Descartes], hereafter known as S/O[D], a
> source of much misunderstanding). But I do believe that the intellect
> always divides into "me", the doubter, and "it", the pattern of SQ
> that is subject to doubt.

Well put Mike. Five or ten years at this site and a lot of "Paul's 
letters to the Corinthians" may convince some, but I'm afraid 
there is no Quality behind this statement Pirsig does for some 
mysterious reason see the subject/object reality as encasing the 
Quality one. From "Lila's Child"s "missing annotations" (# 4) he 
says 

    "In the MOQ, all organisms are objective. They exist in 
    the material world. All societies are subjective. They exist 
    in the mental world. The distinction is very sharp. For 
    example, the President of the US" is a social pattern. No 
    objective scientific instrument can distinguish a President 
    of the US from anyone else."  

Here it gets even worse, objects and subjects serve as definitions 
for the Quality levels while it ought to be the other way: One Q-
level defining the whole bl...dy  platypus. 

> (Here I go again throwing mud at the already filthy wall of
> intellect-definition.)

;-)
 
> Intellect is the means by which the individual discerns the value of
> propositions. I'm willing to speculate that intellect was born when
> the first lie was uttered by a human being. Once social patterns for
> sharing meaning evolve to the point where propositions can be formed,
> the possibility of lying arises. And that is when it becomes necessary
> to evolve a new value level for discriminating between propositions.
> Gradually, doubt spreads: the Israelites become the first society to
> systematically doubt and reject the idols and totems worshipped by
> every other society; Greeks such as Parmenides, Zeno and Heracleitus
> begin to question the reality of permanence and change, and the myths.

I vouch for this if the individual is seen in an aggregate of all 
static levels, not the MOQ unfolding in the individual's mind. 
Thus the 4th level evolved out of the 3rd. not from mind. At least 
we ought to preserve this grand MOQ overview, but naturally, we 
may "return" to the intellectual for all practical purposes. 

Extremely interesting. The Israelites turning to mono-theism can 
be compared to the initial search for eternal principles, but it 
never went further like the Greeks and by and by the Greek 
influence on the "other shore" spawned Christianity with its focus 
on individual worth and  rejection of the Mosaic Law that 
represented social values' preponderance.  

> Hence the obsession of the more turgid Western philosophers with
> "sense deception", not realising that the senses never decieve - it is
> the interpretation that can be erroneous. For example, Descartes'
> senses do not lie when he sees a stick half-submerged in water. Data
> are data. It his his unspoken linguistic interpretation: "the stick is
> bent", that deceives him, and it is this PROPOSITION that he doubts.

If I get you right, yes. Intellect-based Western philosophy was 
preoccupied with this subjective sense-experience "in here" 
versus reality-out-there. This however came to a crisis with the 
empiricists and God knows what occupies it to-day. The MOQ 
removes this platypus with the level system, in this case the 
biological where senses rule. 

> > [IG] Come down out of the trees
> > guys, the enlightenment's lovely. Some of our intellects have
> > evolved and left subjects and objects behind, where they belong. A
> > pattern fossilised in the intellect of earlier generations,
> > somewhere low down in the 4th layer.
 
> [Mike] I doubt that any of us can call ourselves enlightened, and
> especially not when we are walking around dividing the world into
> subjects and objects while claiming that our intellects have left
> subjects and objects behind, without realising how impossible that is.
> We can only leave subjects and objects behind by suspending disbelief
> and engaging in the creative dance of Quality, guided only by a vague
> sense of we know not what. If anyone can offer a pithier and more
> poetic version of that clumsy last sentence, I'd greatly appreciate
> it!

Ian's "let's keep quiet please"  will not make it go away. The MOQ 
is supposed to be understood by a child, not something that 
requires "enlightenment".  

 > > > [Bo] I regret if it
> > > sounds disloyal to object to Pirsig's utterings, but I can't help
> > > criticize what grates my Q-nerve. The said "encasement" is no mere
> > > uttering, but part of the canon and it was only after it appeared
> > > in the "Subjects, Objects ..." paper that its dubious nature
> > > dawned on me. I excused it as Pirsig accommodating to a somish
> > > audience, but he denied that in "Lila's Child" .... alas.

> [Mike] I wasn't aware that the faulty encasement of the S/O[D] was
> generally accepted in the fundamental sense. If it is so, I understand
> your sustained vehemence and Crusading attitude more than ever, Bo.

To the extent that people understand or care, yes, I believe so. 
Paul is coming to its rescue at least. 

Bo