[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[Platt Holden]

Hi Ham, 

[Platt]
> > Relying on Pirsig's evolutionary moral levels as a way of organizing
> your
> > thoughts gives you a lot more understanding of reality than is
> > possible
> by
> > imagining archangels circling the planet.

[Ham] 
> I will organize my thoughts as I see fit, thank you.

Right on. I used "you" in the general sense. Of course, you the individual
have the right to organize and express your thoughts however you like.
Thankfully we still have that freedom in the U.S. although that right is
at risk now more than ever.  

> As for "more 
> understanding of reality", I've seen no evidence that the laws and
> principles of scientific investigation are invalid or unworkable.  If
> "reality" refers to physical existence, chemistry, physics, electronics,
> cosmology, botany, biology, physiology, psychology, sociology, and
> economics have been around far longer than Pirsig's MoQ whose levels are
> named after some of them.  Ultimate reality is another matter (as Craig
> has demonstrated below).

I need not remind you that reality goes far beyond the physical that
science monopolizes. But when it comes to the source of physical things
science only offers such impoverished explanations such as "emergent,"
"spontaneous" and "chance."  In other words, "Oops." 

> [Platt]:
> > Pirsig's argument is that absolute reality is everyday experience.
> 
> How can that be?  What is "absolute" about everyday experience? 
> Quality? Truth?  Morality?

Quality, morality and reality are all words having the same meaning in the
MOQ. "Truth" is a high quality intellectual pattern. 

> > Quality (Value) comes prior to any division or any hierarchy and is
> > "realized" every waking moment. But, as long as thinking requires
> > patterns for meaning, it requires divisions, hierarchies and other
> > intellectual structures. Pirsig has given us the division of DQ/SQ and
> > the value levels to make reality more intellectually meaningful than
> > ever before.

> Seems that at least one longtime MoQer is confused about the
> organization of reality by Pirsig's paradigm:
> 
> [Craig]:
> > In SOM only one metaphysics can be correct - the one that identifies
> > all objects & their relationships correctly. In the MoQ there are
> > various ways that reality is structured. Is the biological level:
> > plants, animals & prokaryotes? Mitosis & photosynthesis?  Seeing,
> > hearing, smelling, tasting &
> touching?
> > What is the intellectual level: thoughts & concepts?  Language &
> logic?
> > Truth & falsity?

Craig can respond if he cares to. 

> Clearly, Pirsig's four levels are intended to represent existential
> reality. 

What's the difference between "existential" reality and "experiential"
reality? Since I don't know I can't comment.   

> But is inorganic matter a "value level"?

All levels are "value levels." The value of inorganic matter resides at
the inorganic value level.    

>  Is evolution the value of the 
> Biological Level?

"Evolution is Dynamic Quality at work." Dynamic Quality pervades all
levels. For the MOQ explanation of evolution please refer to Chapter 11 of
Lila.  

> Is human experience or morality the value of the Social
> Level?

The world is a moral order, i.e., morality pervades the universe. Thus,
morality is a value at all levels.  

> Is thought or language the value of the Intellectual Level?

Thought and language are intellectual patterns of value residing at the
intellectual level.  

> And
> where in Pirsig's hierarchy is the knowing self represented??

In pure direct experience prior to thoughts about representing knowing
selves.

> > In my book, Pirsig's metaphysical structure provides greater meaning
> > and understanding than your structure. But, your binding of value and
> > experience together holds out hope that you will be enlightened. :-)
> 
> Structure, relations, and process define objective reality. 
> Value-sensibility, experience, and intellect define subjective
> awareness. Take away either premise and nothing, according to Pirsig's
> scheme, remains. What would be your answer?

Take away your subject-object premise and what remains is the MOQ premise:
the world is a moral order. But the MOQ doesn't reject the S/O premise.
It's included in the broader MOQ worldview.

Hope you find these brief answers responsive, Ham. If I've misinterpreted
the MOQ I'm sure corrections will be forthcoming. Of course nothing can
substitute for the MOQ as written by Pirsig in "Lila." 

As always, warm regards,
Platt