[MD] The SOL-ution

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Marsha (V=the fifth?)

On 18 Jan. you wrote:

(after I had written)
> >A little introduction: In LILA somewhere Pirsig makes it sound as if
> >Reality=Quality is the revolutionary thing, while the dynamic/static
> >split (D/S) is an arbitrary choice. He even says that SOM is a
> >subject/object divide of the said Quality.

Marsha:
> Am I correct to state that before RMP's 'Reality=Quality', the 
> prominent Western worldview was 'Reality=Subjects&Objects'?

YES! was my immediate reply. It still is but then Anthony 
remarked: "Just objects", after which Mark - of all persons in the 
world - agreed with me. However let me talk a little about this - 
um - subject.     
  
In ZMM the subject/object division is described as emerging with 
the Greeks, displacing the old Aretê reality. Now let the Aretê 
issue rest and concentrate on ZMM's treatment of the SOM. (the 
abbreviation is not used in that book, but we know what's up)

Phaedrus was confronted with the question if (his) Quality was 
subjective or objective. He rejected both alternatives by a line of 
argument too long to summarize here, but what's important is 
this:         

    And finally: Phædrus, following a path that to his 
    knowledge had never been taken before in the history of 
    Western thought, went straight between the horns of the 
    subjectivity-objecetivity dilemma and said Quality is 
    neither a part of mind, nor is it a part of matter. It is a third
    entity which is independent of the two.  

In a MOQ hindsight we see that Phaedrus was immersed in the 
SOM and accepted that Quality had to belong somewhere in its 
S/O matrix. However after the said brainstorm Quality had 
become a third entity (the trinity phase) but by and by he turned 
things inside-out: Quality became the SOURCE of the S/O 
divide, i.e; a "Quality/S-O" metaphysics.

This is much like the Romantic/Classic proto-moq where the right 
hand side is sub-titled 'intellect' and then S/O-divided. In other 
words Phaedrus saw intellect=SOM and in my opinion this is how 
the final MOQ's 4th. level should have been defined (hence the 
SOL interpretation) 

So in the ZMM all is correct: SOM is presented as MOQ's 
metaphysical rival, but stripped of its "M" relegated the role of 
"intellect". In LILA however SOM appears as a mere "substance 
metaphysics" (Anthony's "object) as a useful yet limited idea in an 
idea-intellect. LILA says further:      

    This may sound as though a purpose of the Metaphysics 
    of Quality is to trash all subject-object thought but that's 
    not true.  Unlike subject-object metaphysics the 
    Metaphysics of Quality does not insist on a single 
    exclusive truth. 

Of course MOQ's purpose is to replace SOM's subject/object split 
with is the own dynamic/static one - AS THE METAPHYSICAL 
REALITY - yet keeping the former as its highest static good. This 
is Phaedrus' original insight and the only way to deal with things. 
Why Pirsig of LILA deviated from this this is (my) great mystery.     

The "many truths" idea is both untenable and outright dangerous, 
but let me stop here. Your question was if it is correct to state  
that before RMP's 'Reality=Quality', the prominent Western  
worldview was 'Reality=Subjects&Objects'?

... and that's just spot on! The issue of the Aretê reality that 
preceded SOM - how this will be treated in a MOQ light - I will 
return to.  

IMO

Bo