[MD] Re differences between MoQ and SOM

[skutvik at online.no]

Hello Andrè

16 Oct. you wrote:

> I'd like to put these next questions in the Discuss. (If these have
> been sufficiently answered elsewhere could you please direct me).

They are addressed in Pirsig's books ;-).
 
> (1) What is the essential difference between the MoQ and SOM thinking?
 
> The reason I ask is that lots of talk has been going on about MoQ
> 'interpretations' and lots of times people have been 'admonished' for
> their (falling back into) SOM thinking/reasoning (and SOM is receiving
> a fair bashing here). We have all been brought up, and most of our
> lives, immersed in SOM. I am still grappling with this. It is
> difficult to take the cultural glasses off and this leads to my second
> question,

A most apt set of questions Andrè, and to start with the last (if it is 
possible to take one's cultural glasses off). Yes, but it's dangerous for 
the first one who does so. Phaedrus of ZAMM did and was struck 
down by intellect's immune system (because the MOQ is "out of 
intellect" or out of SOM).   

But as said most of this discussion hasn't moved one iota out of 
intellect (or SOM) and Pirsig himself recanted and dropped Phaedrus' 
radical MOQ (intellect=SOM) and when LILA arrived the intellectual 
level had become the nondescript article we know.

Returning to you original question: "What is the essential difference  
between the MoQ and SOM thinking?"

It's the new DQ/SQ metaphysics (split) that relegates the previous 
metaphysics (S/O) a place within the SQ  realm. The first Q insight 
were the "Pre-intellect/Intellect" one where "intellect" was the subject 
aware of objects. And had the final MOQ retained this intellect, but 
...alas.  

> (2) how can we recognise in our own and other's arguments/ positions
> the SOM thinking elements? Is there an "easy" way/ trick to this? How
> can we help ourselves and others move towards MoQ 'reasoning'?

This sounds a bit megalomania, but the sure sign is that of NOT 
understanding the SOL, meaning that their SOM's "glasses" are so 
firmly set that no peek outside them is possible.  

Sincerely

Bodvar

PS
> I realise that this Discuss is one place but ehhh a small instruction
> manual? a sort of a MoQ for dummies like me?

Phew, If it only was that simple. You know the weak (Einstein) and 
strong (Bohr) interpretations of Quantum Physics? The weak one has 
been disproved through several experiments (the first Alain Aspect's in 
1985) There is a similar approach to the MOQ - the SOL the strong - 
but what experiment can prove or disprove it is yet to be figured out.