[MD] subject/object: pragmatism

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Spirit of Adirondacks.

On 19 Nov. u wrote:

> Bo, I have a question below for you.
 
I'm lagging behind but have a policy of just downloading and 
reading posts once a day. I noticed that you had other comments, 
but will work myself backward ... like the contrarian I am.  

> > [Platt]
> > I don't see where Pirsig posits "human reason as the
> > ultimate measure of
> > understanding." It has value to be sure, as you
> > demonstrate in this post. But
> > like me, Pirsig is big on aesthetic understanding
> > which can't be explained. 
 
> Platt, you stated in another post in this thread that intellect can't
> define what is good.  I agree. I'm curious if this is what Bo is
> trying to say when he says the moq is the meta-level and intellect is
> not quality, etc... 

My words seem to undergo some distortion when filtered through 
you. Intellect not quality, I can't have said that. Intellect - or 
MOQ's 4th level - is the value of the subject/object distinction. 
The highest and best static value, only subordinate to MOQ's 
DQ/SQ.

About the meta-level. All big systems create a point of view that 
isn't part of itself, a God's Eye meta-point. You don't find 
Newton's Physics inside Newton's Physics where it would be 
subject to gravity and its various laws. Thus the MOQ - as the 
biggest system ever created - IS ITSELF, not a part of itself. I 
don't know what Pirsig wanted to achieve by postulating the MOQ 
as an intellectual level, at times I feel that the MOQ was too big 
for him to survey, that our job is to help explore it, and I'm sure 
the current intellect is a blind ally.

Bo