[MD] The MOQ for dummies.

[Case]

[Bo]
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. 

[Case]
I am not so sure about the elementary particle level. The cells in my body
have their own unique identifying code. The immune system operates by being
able to discriminate cells on the basis of the code. I doubt that particles
operate in this way.

[Bo]
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]
Quantum physics seems to be one of those things that means whatever your
think it means. The problem is that we are not equipped with sensory or
conceptual apparatus to make much sense of it. One reason we are not so
equipped is that it is irrelevant to us. By the time the physical world is
manifest in a way they we can relate to all of the quantum weirdness is
average out. The probabilities are resolved.

In any case Pirsig does not make S/O go poof he merely moves it over a
notch. 

[Bo]
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]
I really don't see how having our existence suspended in language pulls the
rug out from objectivity. After all it is through symbolic manipulation that
we discuss reality. It is our way of communicating about experience to
ourselves and others rather than experience itself.

[Bo]
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]
In my own view ZMM was a better book and expressed a better philosophy than
Lila. Pirsig's confusion of Quality with DQ in Lila causes nothing but
confusion and a lot of silly talk.

[Bo]
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]
Taoism provides a knife for carving up all sorts of dualisms. Getting all
hung up on one or two of them just stifles progress.

[Bo]
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.         

[Case]
Rules and regulations are the intellectualization of unwritten rules the
unwritten rules are social. Biological existence is not simply a mater of
dog eat dog. It is a matter of lots of different strategies for survival.
Society is one of these means.

[Bo]
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.  

[Case]
I understand the context of many cannibal practices and while I don't wish
to participate in them I do not condemn those who do. Christians practice
ritual cannibalism and while I find it less disgusting it doesn't do a lot
for me. If all the moq does is provide you with a new way to rationalize
existing prejudices, it has not done much.