[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy

[X Acto]

Andre:

It is my observation then that the combination of the dialectic and rhetoric
(the 2 supreme modes of thinking? having led to other, supreme quality
insights, and re-definitions[encapsulated within the frame of mind called
MoQ) are employed by Pirsig (together with his own analogues), to arrive at
Quality and that this is what the intellectual level should be and be a
reflection of.( can this be called an evolutionary step? I do not think so,
because the MoQ, in this way has been given the intellectual capacity to
reflect on itself (instantaneously) and thereby go through a 'growing up'
process..a maturing process. Intellect correcting intellect (with the aid of
its parent level:society ( This is not detracting anything from the
Intellectual level...it just keeps it from going berserk! because it is
still in nappies!!!).

The intellectual level can have such a wonderfull relationship with the
rest...if only it realised it comes from it! Artists realise this!

Ron:
Exactly Andre, HERE is the center of the whole issue with Bodvar. His SOL does not allow
for MoQ to be a self reflecting intellectual system, instead he continues on SOM's objective 
path in re-instating MoQ as reality. MoQ's entire worth is this self reflective ability just as you stated.
Calling MoQ reality and assuming atoms prefer their molecular bonds as reality, is well, rather goofy
in my opinion. As well as stating that DQ/SQ IS reality. If DQ is indefineable then all one may study
is the static. Heres the wrinkle in SOL, if subject and object are static, that makes things and thoughts
about things static quality, it makes MoQ a static pattern. Contradicting Bodvars own assertions.
If MoQ is Reality in a Dynamic Quality, then it may not be defined. I ask, exactly HOW does this
provide a clearer understanding? overlook paradox for Bo's say-so? 


But if MoQ is explained as another interpretation of the same data, then it demonstrates the possibility of 
alternate explanations with similar potential for accuracy and continuity with accepted concepts.
This revelation is the key driving element in Pirsgs theory which IS reflective of current scientific
atitudes in post modern physics. 

So, my fellow MD participants, we have a choice of one mans opinion which arrives at paradox
or
Substantiated and supported concepts which arrive at a cohesive solution for the "stuckness"
or blind spots in traditional empiricism.

One boasts greater explanitory power,
the other delivers.

I choose the one that delivers.