[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[Platt Holden]

> 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?

Hi Andre:

Well, on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays I agree with you and Pirsig. On 
Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays I agree with the materialists. On Sunday 
I let go and let God. It's the sort of question that keeps us philosopher 
types amused for years (except those who take their intellectualizations 
too seriously).

> 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.

Well, I think you are personifying the levels whereas I see the levels as 
being inhabited by specified types of patterns. But I agree that it's 
always good to recognize and be grateful for the blessings of this world, 
which is why I reserve Sunday for getting down on my knees.  

> 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?

Pirsig makes sense to me in his critique of SOM-bound intellectuals. One 
need only look at where amoral SOM intellect led humanity in Europe and 
Asia in the 20th century, and now in 21st century China. Cuba, Venezuela, 
and other places.  

> 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.

In religious matters, reason is rarely effective as a tool of persuasion. 
In fact, trying to change anyone's beliefs is amazingly difficult. Humans 
are not noted for being open-minded unless physically threatened. Like they 
say, there are no atheists in foxholes.  

> 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?)

He has done his job -- illuminating the path to a better future. Now it's 
up to you and me as "individuals making Quality decisions."
 
> I need help with this Platt!!!

I need your help, too. I think it is through our conversations that we are 
lured towards and encouraged to make Quality decisions. I least that's my 
hope in participating here. And to have fun.

You bring a lot to the MOQ_discuss table, Andre. I look forward to your 
posts. They always contain much of interest to ponder. 

Platt