[MD] subject/object: pragmatism

[skutvik at online.no]

High Spirits (SA)

On 20 Nov. you wrote (to me):

> Ok, the moq isn't the intellectual level according to you?  

Not AT the intellectual level, i.e: no intellectual pattern, is my 
claim .. .. to pick nits.

> I don't know anybody on this forum that states the moq is strictly the
> intellectual level.  So, your saying nothing new here, or are you? 

MOQ being THE intellectual level I guess no one claims, but the 
MOQ as an intellectual pattern is dogma because Pirsig says so.

> You like to point out the intellectual level and what it is and what
> the social level is, but what is this moq-metalevel that you espouse? 
> If it can't be known partially by using intellect, social, etc...,
> according to you,

"Using intellect"? Doesn't  that reveal that - to you - the 4th. level 
is the ability to think. And my standard retort follows: when 
ancient people (pre-intellect, there must have been such an 
epoch?) figured out explanations of their existence (Myths) were 
they using the fourth level? Clearly not. They used intelligence 
and that is something else  

It's this mega-trite understanding of the 4th. level as MIND (=the 
mental computer where ideas or symbols are manipulated 
according to rules of logic) that has haunted the MOQ since its 
presentation in LILA. (ZAMM had a correct definition, namely the 
subject/object distinction - the value thereof.) 

> then what's the big deal about this moq-metalevel you espouse? 

I did answer that. The big deal is that the MOQ is a "big deal" and 
because the levels are sub-sets of the MOQ, the MOQ can by no 
twist of logic be a sub-set (pattern) of a level. The MOQ is no 
static level, it is the very QUALITY SYSTEM. (Phew, everything 
you say can be used against you)   

> What does it do?  

It provides the viewpoint from where the Quality context is seen. 
The static levels themselves are blind as dormice re. their own 
level role (not blind to quality though).

> What's it about?  What does it have anything to do with this world?  I
> really don't know.  

By providing the said view it enlarges "this world" 

> Is it pure experience/direct experience? 

Of course. We know from ZAMM that Phaedrus reached the 
insight that some pure - direct - experience preceded (what he 
called)  "intellect" (much like Poincare's "beauty" and James' 
"aesthetic continuum") this was what later became Dynamic 
Quality so DQ=pure experience=direct experience.

End of class.

Bo