[MD] Knowledge as MOQ's intellect

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi David M.

10 Dec. you said to me:

> SOM is the form intellect has developed from and with.
> The S-O distinction intellectually divides experience-reality
> into two.

Yes, I believe this is our common ground. I showed that Pirsig 
saw "knowledge" as what rebelled against social value and 
formed the next value level (the S/O aggregate, objective 
knowledge/subjective superstition) By more twists and turns 
Pirsig makes "knowledge" turn into "science" - exactlys as in 
ZAMM where the first scientific attitude is spotted with Aristotle.     

> Via this division we try to understand reality-experience.
> But in the end this division proves flawed. The distinction has split
> qualities in an inconsistent way. 

SOM is flawed metaphysically, but the S/O distinction is the 
highest and best static value thanks to its liberation from- and 
control of the social level. Look to the cultures stuck there, the 
muslim world). The S/O brought the enormous scientific and 
social progress that characterizes the Western world. 

But as said  metaphysically the SOM is flawed and the equally 
enormous progress of the MOQ is to rob it of its "M" and relegate 
it to its proper place within MOQ's static hierarchy. In this 
capacity it is not flawed at all, no more than the rest of the levels. 

> MOQ re-thinks this distinction and thinks with a new distinction DQ/SQ.
> With DQ/SQ the misleading division between subjectivity and knowledge
> (objective) can be healed. 

Agree!!

> You sound below as if there is not a problem with objective knowledge
> and as if subjectivity has no knowledge and truth. All this is resolved
> by MOQ (a new intellectual distinction that can shake off much of SOM) 

With the above reservations regarding SOM's role as a 
metaphysics (as things really are) and its role as the 4th static 
Quality level, we hopefully agree.

Bo