[MD] The MOQ for dummies.

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Case

30 Jan. you wrote:

> Whether it good metaphor or sound metaphysics, I can not say. But I
> experience what I experience. I do not experience what others
> experience. My body functions in such a way that down to the cellular
> level it distinguishes what is me from what is not. 

Here you present SOM most clearly: Existence as so many 
isolated subjective minds with the rest their objects "out there". 
This going down to the cellular level and beyond - to the 
elementary particle level. Now, if we switch to the MOQ's meta-
view, this is existence seen from intellect, but the point is that 
there are are levels below where the S/O separation doesn't 
apply. OK, this is regarded as "ignorance". For example: People 
of old did not know that the stars were separate suns, not 
belonging to our system. And - right - intellect IS the highest 
static level, yet static in the sense that it dissolves if examined 
closely. Phaedrus did so on the metaphysical level and the S/O 
separation went poof, science does on the practical (quantum) 
level and the same happen in the laboratories: particles 
"communicate" across the universe. 

> [Case]
> So you had like a bad mystical trip? Why did this lead you to question
> the mind/matter world?

As said I compare myself with Phaedrus who at first "accepted" 
the mind/matter premises because he didn't know there was a 
SOM, yet was too rational to leave it be. He did not try to 
alleviate it by meditation or drugs, but charged head on, applying 
reason's S/O "knife" on itself. This resulted in the said "endless 
number of hypotheses" which in plain langue means that there is 
no bottom to reality. My own epiphany was something about our 
existence being "suspended in language", but had the same 
effect, it pulled the rug from under the objective reality.    

> [Case]
> See, when I read ZMM many years ago I though he did a marvelous job of
> subtly introducing westerners to Taoism. In doing so he was showing
> how opposites can be united and dualisms resolved.

Most people read it that way - still do, but ZMM's real message is 
its "shoot-out" with SOM and the budding new moq. It might have 
become a Tao metaphysics, that would have been ok if only 
Dynamic/Static divided, I see Quality and D/S as one and the 
same. Pirsigs statement that it can be divided any way is wrong, 
a subject/object-division of Quality is indistinguishable from 
ordinary SOM.  
 
> [Case]
> When I read Lila I thought he was continuing the Taoist thing by
> describing how the active and passive aspects of the Tao are manifest
> in the world. I never took his levels all that seriously beyond the
> fact that this is how colleges divide their curricula. I saw Pirsig as
> taking the MoQ out for a test drive thinking, "Yeah that kind of
> works," but if we drove it around a different block we might want to
> divide things up differently.

Yes, Pirsig also says that the static levels match the current 
"curriculum", but this comparison is false the various static 
patterns don't match SOM in any other way than SOM=the 4th. 
level. The said comparison is also behind his method of 
subsuming SOM.        

> [Case]
> The sad fact is there have to be social rules. The more those rules
> mimic the "laws of nature" the better they are. For example traffic
> laws are good laws because they set rules for reducing the probability
> of accidents. The penalties set for violating them merely mimic what
> their actual consequences could be. I could get charged a fine for
> running a traffic light but really I do not run traffic lights because
> I could get killed doing it. It is obviously hard to make all laws
> function this way but it would be a nice goal anyway. 

Nothing wrong with these deliberations, but the social level is 
more than rules and regulations. Like all levels it's primary 
purpose is to free existence from the rigors of the former level, in 
societys case from the dog-eats-dog morality of the biological 
existence.         

> But I do not judge cannibal tribes based on my own cultural
> preconceptions. If the tribe survives under the conditions that most
> cannibals must live under, I am not sure how my meddling would benefit
> them. Social customs evolve based on the environment and history of
> the people that have to live with them.

I doubt that you - from the intellectual level - can avoid judging 
the social level, but from the MOQ meta-level we can see the big 
picture. One thing though, cannibalism was never about 
(biological) nourishment, but a ritual. OK, that's my pet issue.  

Enough        

Bo