[MD] Windmills and Intellectual Pots

[skutvik at online.no]

Paul, Mati and all

On 19 Dec. you wrote to Mati, but because it involved me I keep 
mingling. 

> The "idealist" charge is not part of a positive attempt to define
> intellect but a result of drawing out the consequences of Bo's idea. 
> The big difference between Bo and Pirsig is that the former assumes
> that metaphysics *is* reality whereas the latter doesn't.  

Come on Paul, the moment Pirsig launched the Realty=Quality 
thesis he shifted from one reality to another. There is no bridge 
from the Subject/Object to the DQ/SQ one. There's no  common 
"X" that only get divided differently. I don't know how this illusion 
manages to survive.  

> Bo says
> that the MOQ doesn't just refer to static levels and Dynamic Quality,
> it *is* all of the levels and it *is* Dynamic Quality.  This is why it
> flips him out to say that the MOQ is part of its own structure. 

It sounds as if my position is some nut-case, but if you take a 
social level inhabitant, one of the Sep11 "pilots" for example, his 
reality (metaphysics) has no connection whatsoever with the 
intellectual one.  

> Reality, to Bo, advances in eras where each era is entirely
> constituted by its metaphysics.  So, according to Bo, we are entering
> the Quality era which is constituted by the MOQ itself.  

Course we are, if we refuse to remove intellect's S/O glasses the 
MOQ will never make it. Look to the plain nonsense of 
Annotation 97   

> I asked Bo
> how he defines metaphysics and, unless he corrects me, he said, "A
> logical, coherent universe of thought."  So if reality is constituted
> by metaphysics and metaphysics is a logical, coherent universe of
> thought, then reality just is a logical, coherent universe of thought.

"Of thought" is, as Mati pointed out, intellect. A world out there 
that we make thought maps of, but (as said) a devout Muslim 
doesn't see it that way, his world is no "thought map" but as 
revealed by Allah. To a "devout" moqist the intellectual level is 
no mental compartment where metaphysics reside, rather the 
value of the METAPHYSICS/WORLD distinction.      

>  This is what Hegel said.

God, must I now start to read Hegel to counter this which I know 
is nonsense?
 
> Apart from this there is another problem here.  It follows from the
> above that until the MOQ was written static and Dynamic Quality didn't
> exist.  If this is the case, given that the MOQ says that evolution is
> the migration of static patterns toward Dynamic Quality, how did the
> universe evolve prior to Bob Pirsig?

This is YOUR problem caused by the illusion that the MOQ and 
SOM are interchangeable. I can't understand why Pirsig - after 
pointing to the Newton' gravity analogy - neglects it. (annotation 
97) Until Newton there were no gravity, the fact that things fell 
where explained by other physics models. The metaphysical shift 
is exactly the same; the moment you understand the MOQ the 
world becomes a Quality Reality, one that has evolved 
accordingly from time immemorial - with inorganic value its first 
fallout. Pirsig's fallacy is to mix the MOQ with SOM *) speaking of 
"inorganic nature coming first a good idea". There is no nature in 
the MOQ, nor are there ideas ... metaphysically seen. There's no 
objection to "working" on the intellectual level and speak about 
mind, matter, nature, ideas ...whatever to one's heart delight, just 
not make metaphysical conclusions from there!        

*) You will see that the orthodox way of encasing SOM shows up 
here and causes the same trouble.


Mati:
> >I don't want to assume what Bo's is thinking in this but I am
> >intrigued by his choice of definition. Pirsig statement was, "As long
> >as you're inside a logical, coherent universe of thought you can't
> >escape metaphysics." Try this on for size and see if it has the same
> >meaning, "As long as your're inside a universe of intellect, you
> >can't escape metaphysics."

> Paul:  Well, that certainly isn't what Bo is saying because clearly he
> doesn't identify a logical, coherent universe of thought with
> intellect, he equates it with metaphysics, and metaphysics with
> reality.  

Hope this clears things up?  

Bo