[MD] Knowledge as MOQ's intellect

[skutvik at online.no]

David M and Group 

15 Dec. you wrote:

> Hi Bo 

> No argument with the below points. Simply I'd add that science emerges
> from the S/O distinction, along with naturalism and secularism, as its
> value and benefit, largely in practical and political terms, also
> giving us individual freedoms, taking society to a new flourishing
> (and also new problems) beyond tradition. The damge of SOM is the M
 
Yes, these points about SOM we agree about and I believe no one 
disagrees, but what has the S/O (SOM minus "M") become? You 
seem as vague as Pirsig himself on this issue ;-) Closing in on it, but 
then, when the consquenses show, shy away. Do you agree that it has 
become the 4th. level? You said before: 

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

"SOM the form intellect developed from". It sounds as if intellect could 
have developed from something else and - in that case - into 
something differnt. Why not simply say "SOM was how intellect 
regarded itself before the MOQ took over and showed us its proper 
place?     

> and MOQ tries to heal this and avoid the M problems of SOM. There is a
> danger that MOQ could fall back into SOM as Matt K argues it sometimes
> does

At times I wonder if it has ever been out of SOM. The notion of Quality 
as some all pervading medium that the MOQ is just one possible 
theory about is somish to the core. It's Kant's "Thing in itself" that no 
one - or no theory - will fathom or catch.

> but with care I think it can tread this difficult path of being a
> metaphysics without the problems of SOM. But in some ways it changes
> what we mean by metaphysics. No reality/appearance distinction, no
> quest for certainty. 

THAT is just right.

IMO

Bo