[MD] Instant Karma

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Andre,

> Whether is is real or perceived I am concerned about the 'DQ' part of
> reality within the intellectual formulation called MoQ (Pirsigs own
> words).

Reality is not contained within the intellectual formulation called MOQ.


> To save the MoQ from the tentacles of SOM is what inspired the 
> following
> thoughts:
>
> We keep on talking about the 4 static levels, the 
> inorganic,organic,social
> and intellectual. And the 4 codes of morals: the inorganic-chaotic,
> biological- inorganic, social-biological, and intellectual-social.

The social-biological code is what people usually mean by morals and 
values. In the presidential campaign, when the media repeatedly 
referred to "values voters" they referred to a particular version of 
this moral code as if anyone ever votes based on anything other than 
values. The intellectual-social code is what we usually mean by human 
rights. You left one out--the dynamic-static moral code or code of 
art--the process of evolving toward greater freedom and static latching 
or not.


> We are
> 'stuck' (please bear with me) at the intellectual level.

A human being is a forest of patterns of all four types with the 
ability to respond to DQ.


> Pirsig himself has described the MoQ as a Static Intellectual Pattern 
> of
> Values...an intellectual formulation. There are many intellectual PoV's
> identified but the one of concern to me, of course, is the SOM and its
> derivatives.
> For someone who describes his own discovery as somewhat akin to a 
> Copernican
> revolution (sorry I've lost the page number) and to then place this
> breakthrough simply beside the SOM as a 'competing' intellectual 
> pattern is
> incomprehensible to me and sells this discovery very short indeed! And 
> I
> felt and still feel very uncomfortable with this.

The idea is not to say that SOM is just as good as the MOQ. It is just 
to acknowledge that the MOQ is an idea. What else could it be? But some 
ideas are better than others.



> And then the first rememberance:
>
> There is another level above the ones already mentioned: the 5th code 
> of
> morals: the Dynamic-static one! (Lila p307) and then it dawned on 
> me...that
> is where the MoQ is!! It is the level earlier identified as the 'code 
> of
> Art' (Lila p167).
>
> THE CODE OF ART = THE METAPHYSICS OF QUALITY!!!!!!!!! IT IS THE 5TH 
> LEVEL
> CODE OF MORALS!! DYNAMIC MORALITY!!

No, the code of art is not a level. Levels refer to types of patterns 
of value. You referred earlier to the inter-level codes. There are 5 of 
these, but only four types of static patterns.

I see Pirsig as a pragmatist. There are probably those who disagree 
with me and would say that Pirsig claims to have discovered and 
actually has dicovered the way things actually are, but I think that 
Pirsig uses the term "metaphysics" a bit ironically. We are supposed to 
look at SOM and the MOQ and try to decide which is the real 
metaphysics:

"This may sound as though a purpose of the Metaphysics of Quality is to 
trash all subject-object thought but that's not true. Unlike 
subject-object metaphysics the Metaphysics of Quality does not insist 
on a single exclusive truth. If subjects and objects are held to be the 
ultimate reality then we're permitted only one construction of 
things-that which corresponds to the "objective" world-and all other 
constructions are unreal. But if Quality or excellence is seen as the 
ultimate reality then it becomes possible for more than one set of 
truths to exist. Then one doesn't seek the absolute "Truth." One seeks 
instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of things with the 
knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future this explanation 
must be taken provisionally; as useful until something better comes 
along. One can then examine intellectual realities the same way he 
examines paintings in an art gallery, not with an effort to find out 
which one is the "real" painting, but simply to enjoy and keep those 
that are of value. There are many sets of intellectual reality in 
existence and we can perceive some to have more quality than others, 
but that we do so is, in part, the result of our history and current 
patterns of values...Or, using another analogy, saying that a 
Metaphysics of Quality is false and a subject-object metaphysics is 
true is like saying that rectangular coordinates are true and polar 
coordinates are false...Both are simply intellectual patterns for 
interpreting reality and one can only say that in some circumstances 
rectangular coordinates provide a better, simpler interpretation."

Regards,
Steve