[MD] the MOQ and its environment

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Marsha

On 25 Feb. u wrote:

> The MOQ is not a dualist system. From Anthony's PhD thesis, "Not only
> is the MOQ a type of 'source' monism (in which Quality is postulated
> as the source of all that exists), in addition, it is monistic in the
> stronger sense of postulating that reality is composed of Quality."

and then you added:

> Dynamic and static are just descriptions of Quality.
> You must be poking fun at me.

Looks like we have to repeat every single argument again and 
again. 

Quality=Reality is the very first postulate of the MOQ, after that 
Quality is dynamic/static divided. In SOM something called 
'Reality' is subject/object divided, and if reality=quality or 
quality=reality makes no difference logically. In fact Pirsig says 
(somewhere in LILA) that SOM is a "quality metaphysics" only 
S/O-divided. 

But a Q-SOM is indistinguishable from ordinary SOM so one may 
ask: If Quality is the overwhelming "fact" why is SOM MOQ's 
enemy, after all it's just another description of the same GOOD? 
Naturally because DQ/SQ is the MOQ, just as S/O is the SOM. A 
Quality outside of MOQ leads to infinite regress. It's a bit like the 
well-meaning assertion that "God" is one, only given different 
names. It does not help, it is the different descriptions (names) 
and dogma that counts.   

IMO the source of this super-Quality fallacy is the "block 
diagrams" in ZMM where the original MC remains unscathed 
even if theoretically split. This is not so regarding IT ALL where 
the division is final. The religious saint may cling to God, but 
without religion no God.          

There have been many candidates for a "groundstuffs" other than 
Quality. Remember how  P. of ZAMM saw a close familiarity 
between his Quality and Poincare's "Harmony" and a MOH 
(identical to the MOQ) would have been OK, so would many of 
the Xs suggested hitherto, but Quality-Value-Morals sort of 
contains them all. 

I don't want to criticize Anthony McWatts PhD thesis, but it's a bit 
platitudinous. Had to be, but now that his degree is secured he 
should have begun to explore the MOQ, not only Pirsig's writings

Finally, I believe Pirsig started to see the above SOM/MOQ 
relationship and wanted to tune down the importance of SOM. In 
the much cited Paul Turner letter he says:

    Just when the evolution of the intellectual level from the 
    social level took place in history can only be speculated 
    on .... [snip] .... but if one studies the early books of the 
    Bible or if one studies the sayings of primitive tribes 
    today, the intellectual level is conspicuously absent. The 
    world is ruled by Gods who follow social and biological 
    patterns and nothing else.  

I agree most vehemently and to me it looked like SOM being 
absent so if Pirsig saw SOM=intellect, the SOL was secured and I 
could not help point this out (while he still answered letters) and 
got this reply.
     
    "I suspect you want to hear that what is "conspicuously 
    absent" is SOM, but I am not sure that SOM was absent 
    in early Biblical times since early social statements such 
    as "Beware of the crocodile!" or "Javeh will reward you", 
    are SOM but are not intellectual in the MOQ sense. 

Here is where I lost my faith in his integrity, he was caught but 
resorted to these silly things. How "Beware of the crocodile ...etc" 
is subject/object (mind/matter)  is beyond me, particularly after 
his splendid and convincing description of how SOM emerged in 
ZMM. But my faith in the MOQ is not diminished.

Bo