[MD] The Menu/Reality issue

[skutvik at online.no]

Andrè and Platt

On 16 Nov. you  wrote:

Bodvar before:
> I think the map/terrain or "understood/presumed reality"  analogy is
> misleading. Quality isn't the terrain with the MOQ a map -  this is
> merely more SOM.

Andre:
> And this was exactly what I was trying to say Bodvar, and I think I
> mistakenly blamed your SOL for this through complete
> misinterpretation. I apologise and take my hat off for you...if I had
> one.

First, many thanks to Platt and you for the vote of confidence in an 
earlier post, I may sound like a Jesuit, but ever since my ZAMM's days 
(mid seventies) I felt that here was a thinker that had the mind/matter 
monster by its throat by making it Quality's creation and calling it 
"intellect" in his first MOQ. But with LILA the selfsame intellectual 
(level) had become somewhat diluted, meaning that the throat grip had 
gone.

Also Pirsig's self-effacing "MOQ just another metaphysics" *) in the 
Aristotelian (SOM) sense of a subjective map of the objective terrain 
undermines the MOQ and opened up for Marsha-like (just 
exemplifying, bless her) use of  senses as less-than-real varieties of 
an inconceivable reality out there as an example of MOQ's 
Static/Dynamic split.         

*) Quality=Reality doesn't mean anything before the DQ/SQ 
configuration. The source of much confusion is that  Pirsig says that 
SOM postulates a "reality" which is subject/object-divided. It doesn't! It 
postulate a S-reality and an O-reality full stop! If SOM had done the 
former it would have admitted to something ahead of the S/O and thus 
been a MOQ-like metaphysics.       

Bodvar