[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[Andre Broersen]

Platt to Andre:

Now it has been argued by our materialist friends that the laws of nature
which are intellectual patterns exist independently of individuals. If so,
the question arrises what intellect created those patterns? Or are we
humans the sole creators of nature's laws?

Andre: Hi PLatt, stimulating questions!

Isn't this question a bit like the one Pirsig tackled with regards to
Newton's Law of Gravity? Before this 'law'... apples just fell... and after
Newton, they fell because of this law.
I think these patterns were created by 'intellect' (i.e. human intellect) to
try to make sense and explain.

Before intellect they 'just fell'.
To perhaps overstate it and repeat myself, the 'LAWS of nature' did not
exist independently of individuals...it was just 'nature' responding to DQ.
In this sense, yes , we are the sole creators of nature's laws and I really
think this has to do with SOM patterned thinking and intellectualising (
which always wants to EXPLAIN and RATIONALLY understand, divide, then put
together again,[according to its own invented rules of logic] et, etc...and
then just misses the point! (which is offered by the MoQ!)
What do you think?

Platt:

> What I was trying to say was that all the 'levels' of the MoQ should
> reflect/be aware of all 'individual' static PoV's. This of course
> includes
> the Intellectual level (as part of a Metaphysics).

Again, I'm don't see how an abstract level, a category created by thought,
can be aware.

Andre:
I am aware that I am not responding very well. The intellectual level ( if
it is part of a good metaphysics...and the MoQ is) should respond to and
reflect all the levels it 'dominates' or rather..THANK all the levels (and
continue to show its gratitude towards...) for its existence.

Platt:

Agree that Pirsig wants to replace SOM with the MOQ. But, his critique of
today's SOM-bound intellectuals and their detrimental effect on socity
doesn't make sense unless the S/O distinction dominates the intellectual
level and, as Bo points out, are attributed high value by today's movers and
shakers in politics, the media and the academy, i.e., the power elites.

Andre:

And here, Platt, I have a huge blind spot. Help me please to answer the
question why/ where Pirsig 'doesn't make sense' in his critique of SOM-
bound intellectuals, 'UNLESS'??? what?
Trying to convert an imam to christianity will only have hope if you can
convince the imam that christianity is better than islam (this is off the
top of my head, the example Pirsig uses somewhere in Lila)
But to convince the imam,surely the christian does not stay within the
intellectual pattern of the imam..he tries to convince the imam of
adopting the christian intellectual patteren HAVING ENLARGED/INCORPORATED
the imam's intell. patterns and thereby altered his reasoning.

IMHO what can Pirsig do about those 'movers and shakers' who continue to
highly value the S/O distinction? ( this is so embedded in social
rewards!!!). What has PIrsig failed to do?
Can't he do anything more, at this stage of our social/ intellectual
development,  than to present an alternative path ( i.e the MoQ?)

I need help with this Platt!!!

Always a pleasure,
Andre