[MD] MOQ Levels

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Bo,

>> Steve:
>> The intellectual level contains all patterns of thought. Making
>> subjective/objective knowledge distinctions is just one of these
>> patterns of thought. Arguing that reality = Quality is another pattern
>> of thought.
>

Bo:
> "Patterns of thought", my foot! What did people of old - long
> before the intellectual level - apply when they made up their
> social value-based explanation of existence, if not what intellect
> calls thinking?

Steve:
An explanation of existence is an intellectual pattern even if it is a 
really bad explanation of reality.



> The MOQ (if that is what you call Reality=Quality) is NOT
> another intellectual pattern (if that is what you mean by "another
> pattern of thought") it is the metaphysics that takes over from the
> old SOM and relegates it the role of its own 4th. level.

Steve:
It is like evolutionary theory in biology. Evolution is not *just* 
another theory. It is the structure that contains all other theories 
about biology.

Yet it is still a theory. Likewise, the MOQ is a new intellectual lens 
to view reality. In that way it is more that another pattern. It gives 
new structure to other intellectual patterns. Yet it is still an 
intellectual pattern. What else could it be?

Also, in a way the MOQ replaces SOM but SOM is also a straw man. I'm 
not sure that many people have ever actually completely bought in to 
the SOM premises.



> No doubt Chris will answer, but this is exasperating. I show Steve
> again and again how his intellect=thinking reasoning leads into
> absurdities, but he comes back completely unfazed.


Steve:
I am not surprised that you are exasperated, in over 10 years you 
haven't been able to convince a single person in this discussion group 
of SOLAQI. Every time a new voice enters the forum you begin by 
flattering them, "you are making such profound statements about the 
MOQ. Since you are so astute, maybe you can understand what no one else 
around here seems to be smart enough to get: why Pirsig is actually 
wrong about what his own theory says!"

Have you ever been in a marching band and looked around and noticed 
that everyone was out of step except you?

I'm not saying that one person can't be right and everyone else can't 
be all wrong. But if I were in such a situation, I would give serious 
consideration to what everyone else is saying about the MOQ, especially 
Pirsig himself. I don't think you do this.

You insist that everyone but you is stuck in SOM and that it is so 
important that we see intellect as the value of the S/O aggregate. What 
kind of clarity are we suppose to gain by doing this? I've already 
conceded that a distinction between symbol and what is symbolized is 
fundamental to intellect. But so what? How does this help me or you or 
civilization in the evolution of static patterns toward dynamic 
quality?

Regards,
Steve