[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Arlo and Andrè

14 Dec. you wrote to Andre:

> The problem is that Platt claims (and to be fair, Pirsig suggests)
> that nothing responds to DQ except for "man". Once again, I would then
> ask, if so then "what" did respond to DQ before man? Give me an
> example of anything, anything at all, that "responded to DQ" before
> man appears on the stage. 
 
> If Platt had said "animals", then I would ask (and he knows this),
> give me an example of how an animal may have responded to DQ in the
> past that it can no longer do. Give me some evidence from history,
> anthropology, archeology, whatever of an animal that did things in
> response to DQ, and what that was, all things that animals today (in
> their non-DQness) can't do.
 
> I think you'll see how absurd that is revealed to be when you start
> asking simple questions like these. 

The reason for Pirsig's saying that nothing but man responds to DQ is 
I believe that he (correctly) regards the intellectual level as Q-
evolution's last stage (leading edge) and that humankind's is it's sole 
"inhabitant" here (not even all of those). The inorganic level was DQ's 
first creation and what it immediately started to probe in an effort to 
escape. The result was the biological level which became leading 
edge and what "responded to DQ" .. and so on. The lower levels 
workings are now "static responses" as I see it. Your insisting that the 
MOQ is - and will remain - an intellectual level is an example of 
STATIC intellectual response. The thing now is to free DQ from its last 
static creation - intellect - and let the Quality Evolution find its "final 
form".  Here things kind of collapses - I admit that - but not only for the 
SOL interpretation, one can't possibly envisage a new intellectual 
pattern that contradicts the MOQ without the MOQ collapsing. OK as 
always out on my mission. 

Bo