[MD] The percolating SOL

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Andre 

Bodvar to Marsha:

> > I agree, only that IMO the Sophists were (what was to the become) the
> > "S" part of the S/O aggregate. The Truth-ists were clearly what became
> > "the objectivists" and the there-is-no-truth-except-what-we- agree-upon
> > would become "the subjectivists". These two as existence's fundamental
> > fault is what the MOQ substitutes with its DQ/SQ "fault" (I know you go
> > for the Quality as whole and it is whole in the sense that both DQ and
> > SQ are Quality. > I also still agree with you that it would be proper
> > for the > Dynamic/static (the MoQ) point-of-view to reign on its own
> > level. Not as a static level but as the meta-level that it actually is
> > supposed to be.

Andre:
> Dear Bodvar and Marsha: there is untold value in suggesting that the
> intellectual level is the S/O aggregate. I would almost say that an
> appreciation of the MoQ ( and the incredible effort R.M.Pirsig has made)
> is not understood properly without the division of the universe into
> subjects and objects in the first place. We all know of the childhood
> stuff some of us went through being confronted with a clock. In order to
> find out how it worked we pulled it to bits and afterwards re-assembled it
> (hopefully in working order) so we found out what made it tick. Science
> has worked in the same way: to cut up, to divide, to specialise, to
> separate subject from object. What has this shown us? An incredible look
> at the richness out of which everything exists and an incredible balance
> through which everything is contained.

Good, then you see the SOL interpretation as THE MOQ. Pirsig said: 
"if it has quality it will percolate to the top" and it's definitely on its way 
upwards. In contrast to what Arlo and DMB think the MOQ is no copy-
righted "intellectual" product, but a huge upheaval, the implications of 
which Pirsig did not see at the outset - indeed was the last to see, 
because his obsession was Quality, not the MOQ. Just like Plato's 
obsession was IDEAS, having no inkling of the SOM which was to 
emanate from him.     

> As I mentioned before somewhere, science is very good at pulling things
> apart but terrible at putting things back together (in a cohesive,
> sensible, metaphysical way).It seems to me that the dialectical scientific
> investigation has its merits but only to pull apart and expose, let the
> rhetorical way put it into some perspective with the Good as the
> fundamental organising reality...the aesthetic approach.

Science is merely the intellectual levels "busy bees". It's nothing 
wrong with their job. Intellect's ill effects stems from the time before it 
became a Q level, while it was SOM.

> What I am trying to get at is the picture of your SOL (as it is placed
> here on the MD) as a painting in the gallery (SOM is dead and buried). 

As long as the MOQ is seen as an intellectual pattern (instead of 
intellect a MOQ level) SOM is alive. Intellect remains a mental, 
mindish realm where ideas reside, SOM one idea, the MOQ another 
idea, allegedly a good idea, but nevertheless a subjective CONCEPT 
different from the objective world "out there"  ... and SOM prevails. 

> In some ways I picture your SOL as a 'virtual' hallway through which to
> enter... kind of a memory lane... before the MoQ vibrations are
> introduced.And then I stumble...hesitate and try to orientate myself:
> is it possible to have two visions of the MoQ? The static and the
> dynamic one. It is not possible to make the MoQ static (Pirsig for God!
> and another religion is born) by virtue of its own dynamics. Then I see
> arrows pointing: MoQ ..this way...MoQ that way...and I find a
> opening...and above the opening it says: Quality... just follow your
> nose...and you step inside and a little postcard is hanging in the
> air.It is a picture of a cliff-face and the caption reads:This is
> fromwhere Castaneda jumped... .

You have a knack for drama Andre ;-). However "another religion"? 
Definitely not another Middle Eastern "Semitic" kind, but something 
like the Oriental "wisdom" yet one that combines East and West.  

> To tell this stuff I have to trap my thoughts in time and cement them on
> virtual paper...making them static representations of the continuous flow
> of my thoughts, collapsing the waves of an understanding difficult to pass
> on as I have to cut up, divide, separate me from my experience...always
> detracting from the experience in the process. What a prick!

The distinction between thoughts and words is not identical to the 
DQ/SQ, rather a variety of the the faulty "Quality/MOQ" distinction. 
The Quantum Physics seemingly debunks SOM's  "materialism" 
which  was the "mean horn" in ZAMM, but today "idealism" is the 
great obstacle.

Bodvar