[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy

[skutvik at online.no]

Ni hiao Andrè. 

13 Dec. you wrote:
 
> I have been away for a few days and have not read all of the issues
> and posts yet so, if what I will say is a repeat or a contradiction or
> deserves an earbashing ...fine. I would like to get a clear idea for
> myself and would like to reflect on some ideas presented previously.
> As always we need to help eachother on this. We do not do this for
> ourselves we do this for the MoQ.
 
> Bodvar (in his SOL paper quoting Pirsig to strengthen the SOL
> position:
 
> *'Knowledge has grown away from its historic purpose and has become an
> end in itself, just as society has grown away from its original
> purpose.* (Lila p 306). 

(My comment):

> 'It is 'knowledge', and there is no other kind than objective
> knowledge, and because objective requires subjective (like light
> requires darkness)...*intellect is the Value of the S/O distinction.* 
 
Andre:
> Pirsig made it very clear, after having committed himself to
> 'define' Reality to try to make sure what he (Pirsig himself) meant by
> the terms he was going to employ) to describe this reality. He makes a
> very important statement on p 119 in Lila: 'No subject and object but
> static and Dynamic is the basic division of reality'. 

Right, DQ/SQ it is and had Pirsig stuck to that and not at times let it 
become a "Quality slash DQ/SQ" division all would have been fine.

> DQ being the pre-intellectual cutting edge (undefinable)

At the social - intellectual stage DQ was "pre-intellectual", at the 
biological - social stage it was "pre-social" and so on downwards.

> and SQ containing the resolution/redefinition of subjects and ojects.
> So when Pirsig talks about static intellectual patterns of value he
> means the merging/fusion/ containment of subject(ive) and object(ive)
> knowledge into one. Within MoQ thinking there is no division.

A most precise observation. Even if I say that intellect is the value of 
the S/O distinction it is from the premises of this being a mere static 
split going to a certain depth and then merging with social value, which 
in its turn merges with biology ..etc.  

> So these processes of growing away from original, historical purposes,
> are linked. That's what you get when you reject/separate one another
> (call it a divorce). Because you had a close relationship and you do
> not like what the other party finds, as you develop (separately) you
> begin to dislike one another/ become jealous?) because of what you
> find...and what do you find?: through realising your own potential
> (finally freed from 'the other) imperfection and fault' in eachother(
> and , of course complements). This is what Pirsig has sought to
> rectify and set right. This is the core of the defect.(and you do not
> need a social worker to find this out).

A  parable worth a Jesus :-). 

> In this sense, and staying with Pirsig, it can be suggested that,
> instead of "...*intellect *[being] *the value of the S/O
> distinction"*, the step should be taken towards Pirsig and the MoQ
> saying: *Intellect is the value of the S/O resolution*. 

As you may have noticed I keep alternating between the S/O 
distinction and S/O aggregate, the S/O RESOLUTION may be a useful 
variety. 

> The distinction is only entrenched and recognised at the social level
> because Soc. PoV's  have been shaped and dominated by SOM thinking
> (which is dialectically interwoven with this level). 

A minor objection. The S/O isn't really  recognized by the social level 
(no level recognizes any "movement" above itself)  it is intellect that 
has suppressed social values to the degree of dominating the social 
pattern we call  "society".  

> Given this though, a contradiction can be observed: quality thinking
> has always been a part of Soc. PoV's but have been allowed to express
> themselves only in an 'underdog' way....because they were seen as
> 'only' subjective. 

Good, the social level was in its time of emergence a quality leap out 
of biology, but DQ immediately began working out of this static  
confinement and when intellect emerged  as the quest for eternal 
principles (i.e.an objective reality) beyond the mythological one (what 
we know as social) the past became the disgusting subjective state 
that humankind now was about to free itself from. Fantastic, finally one 
who sees this context.    

> As Pirsig argues: 'Static morality is full of heroes and villains,
> loves and hatreds, carrots and sticks. Its values don't change by
> themselves. Unless they are altered by Dynamic Quality they say the
> same thing year after year. Sometimes they say it more loudly,
> sometimes more softly, but the message is always the same'(Lila p
> 119). 

Agree, but it's now that intellect is the highest static morality the trouble 
begin. Intellect has said the same ("objective-over-subjective") thing 
for thousands of years - in constantly new forms - ever since the 
Greeks*) and some people's insisting that the MOQ being an 
intellectual pattern is part of intellect's effort to keep the upper hand. 
And regrettably Pirsig has contributed to intellect's cause. 

> Our 'human' history (and this is hopefully agreed on: that Soc. PoV's
> represent humanity) is full of expressions/ feelings of Good being
> also an expression of non-conformity to established patterns of fixed
> values..'In this sense the *brujo* here is Pirsig. And, whereas the
> *brujo *could not say what ethical principles he was following Pirsig
> damned well did and still does.

The Brujo story was how the Brujo SOCIAL patterns were changed, 
but this is such a major issue so let's return to it ... some time  

> Let's follow the spirit of Pirsig. I believe that SOM and MoQ can
> co-exist together...given MoQ's alterations to SOM's interpretations of
> data. It may be that they can keep eachother 'in check'. The
> intellectual level needs guidance and I am convinced the MoQ has that
> 'mechanism' built within itself. But power corrupts and absolute power
> corrupts absolutely.. 

Wish you hadn't written this, all what went before this looked like you 
saw  the S/O (aggregate, resolution ..whatever) as MOQ's 4 th. level, 
but this talk about SOM and MOQ co-existing kind of undermined it. 
There is no SOM inside the MOQ, only the value of the S/O dualism,  

> This is perhaps where the Code of Art comes in. For SOM this means MoQ
> (GOOD) quality testing/ for the MoQ this means scientifically (TRUTH)
> quality testing. Pure and simple. This may assist the combining process
> of science/mysticism continuing their evolutionary process: i.e.DQ/SQ 

This perhaps nullified the nullification if I were sure what you say. 

> Okay...start bashing.

No bashing at all, I hereby appoint you my lieutenant. Little pay and 
long hours regrettably.


Bodvar