[MD] What is the MOQ?

[skutvik at online.no]

Magnus and Group

Thanks for your input re. my mail program troubles. They are not 
over but enough about that. 

But now I don my stern face and continue our amputated debate 
about the Newton argument in ZAMM that conveys a most crucial 
point regarding the Quality Idea - must have because it is used 
three times in various guises. The last entry was yours of April 
29:   

Magnus:
> Gravity is inorganic value that has been around since the big bang. I
> doubt you have ever disputed that, you have simply ignored it and you
> probably will this time as well.

What SOM (science or intellect) calls "gravity" is an observed 
phenomenon in what it calls "nature" and the "Law" is an 
explanation of  it. The 4th. level dominates our outlook to the 
degree that you can't fathom an age before its scientific 
explanation. No wonder by, as SOM it was reality itself, but now 
our outlook is supposed to have moved to the MOQ.

An aside. You must know that Einstein's General Relativity 
explains the phenomenon in a way that eliminates gravity in the 
Newtonian remote force way. And "artificial" gravity? A person 
inside a rotating cylinder can't tell centrifugal force and gravity 
apart.  

However, in LILA Pirsig spends much time showing that SOM's 
"nature" does not correspond to MOQ's 1st. level in a 
metaphysical sense, and THAT is what the Newton argument is 
about: Nature as an objective entity whose workings can be 
unraveled is created by the intellectual level, there is no gravity 
only "observed phenomena".     

> Now, the similarities between the law of gravity, the S/O division and
> zero are that they are all intellectual patterns.

I would have said that the said law, as part of Newton's Physics, 
and Zero as part of mathematics are intellectual patterns. That 
the S/O is intellect goes without saying, it's the 4th. level itself. 
If you protest you must show me some non-S/O intellectual 
patterns.

> We can talk about them using language and we can represent them in
> formulas etc. As intellectual patterns, they have only existed since
> they were discovered (i.e. first represented) as intellectual patterns. 

Is language your definition of intellect? The point is that the 
dualism of a phenomenon and the theory about it only exist at the 
intellectual level. My guess is that you won't find the term 
"gravity" before Newton. Things fell to the ground, but it was their 
own will. I you attribute this to ancient people's ignorance ... again 
I point to Einstein who explained it differently from Newton's.      

> However, the difference between the law of gravity and the S/O division is
> *what* those intellectual patterns represent. The intellectual pattern
> "the law of gravity" represents an inorganic value that *has* been around
> since the big bang. 

Among intellect's many S/O patterns is that of "theories about-
/and nature itself", as you will remember "substance" is a 
platypus and if so "nature" is a platypus. No, intellect does not 
represent anything else than its own value pattern.  

> But the intellectual pattern "the S/O division" doesn't represent
> anything *real*, not according to the MoQ anyway. 

Strange, if all intellect's patterns are supposed to "represent" 
something why isn't S/O a representation. Naturally because it IS 
intellect itself. 
 
> It becomes infinitely more paralyzed if it denies the existence of gravity
> before the "law of gravity" was formulated.

Paralysis is not caused by this, but by the impossible 4th. level. 
Now, regarding the Newtonian example, as said it is used three 
times so it must have been important to Phaedrus. How do you 
interpret it?

> The fundamental split is *always* between DQ/SQ, no matter what level is
> involved. The law of gravity is just as subjective or objective as gravity
> itself. Both are static patterns of value and both are involved in quality
> events, and thereby influenced by DQ.

The levels are Quality levels - that's kindergarten stuff - but it's 
their static quality that counts, the 4th. level no exception. 
Physics seeks the most truthful explanation of natural 
phenomena, but "nature" isn't the MOQ's 1st. level, no more than 
"mind" is its 4th. level.    


Bo