[MD] The MOQ for dummies.

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Case.
I decided to concentrate on the language point, it was my bridge 
to the Quality Idea and later the MOQ. 

On 3 Feb. you said:  

> 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.

Yes, SOM (reason) has it that language is manipulation of 
symbols that symbolize "experience itself. That's the simplistic 
part, a bit more complicated is it when it comes to symbols of 
symbols - abstractions of abstractions - but even this is usually 
shrugged at .. so what?. But I could not leave it and the right 
hand subsection (objective) eventually dissolved and I was left 
with the insight that "All is Language" or (for your benefit) 
"language is experience itself". This pulled the rug under 
objectivity (for me) ... under subjectivity too, under the very 
subject/object distinction. 

This is how I interpreted (reading ZMM for the first time) what 
young Phaedrus experienced. First in his school days when he 
pursued SOM in the hypotheses/what is hypotesized" form and 
found that "all is hypotheses". Later when he became obsessed 
with the quality term and pursued SOM by way of the question if 
quality was subjective or objective. The first to go was objective 
quality, he then rejected subjective quality and was left with "All is 
Quality" and by and by the MOQ. 

You say that the levels is the messy part of the MOQ. I believe 
this looks so (to you) because you haven't grasped the initial 
transition from the subject/object dualism to the dynamic/static 
one. What I have concluded is that insisting on a Quality outside 
of the dynamic/static split is what hinders this understanding. 
Comparing my language epiphany with Pirsig's Quality one  and 
hearing Heather Perella [or SA] insisting on her "Analogies" 
(which is language in a different guise) and reading (in ZMM) 
about Henri Poincarè's "Harmony" and Pirsig's feeling of identity 
with his Quality, it's clear that there are many canditates for the 
"ALL IS ..." role, but what's common is the DynamicIStatic split 
and that is the real MOQ. 

It's better to discuss such things with a skeptic than those who 
regard all efforts to weed out the inconsistencies as "hurting" 
Pirsig.  

IMO

Bo

PS.
It bears some resemblance with Quantum Physics. When it was 
young the physicists believed that it was some "hidden 
parameter" that caused its weirdness and when discovered it 
would re-unite it with reason (nobody knew - or knows - any 
SOM) Einstein was the last rationalist and formulated his famous 
thought experiment that would decide once and for all that "God 
didn't play dice".This experiment became possible in the eighties 
(by Alan Aspect) but the outcome proved that Quantum reality is 
the only reality, there is no objective world "out there". And by 
now physicists have dropped all pretentions of understanding, 
they just use the Quantum-based equations, they always yield the 
correct results. That's what the MOQ also does: whatever it is the 
directed at all SOM paradoxex (platypus) dissolves  ....by the 
SOL interpretation that is, the way orthodox MOQ solves (for 
instance) the mind/matter enigma is lame.