[MD] (Fwd) Re: The Quality/MOQ dichotomy

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Ham

31 Jan. you wrote:

> After reviewing the elaborate diagrams Bo has reconstructed from
> Pirsig's box representing Reality according to the MoQ, I see his
> argument as follows:

> In LILA, which superseded ZMM, Reality is represented as:
> 
>                                  Quality
>                                  |
>                 Dynamic Quality -slash- Static Quality
>                 (pre-intellectual)            (intellectual or S/O)
> 
> 
> Bo insists this is wrong, arguing instead for a variant of the
> original ZMM diagram which appeared (in Pirsig's SODV paper) like
> this...
> 
>                DYNAMIC QUALITY
>                         - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>                        |                 INTELLECT                |
> Subjective
>                        | 
> |<--- Static
>                        |          SOCIAL PATTERNS         |     
>                        Patterns |- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>                        - - - -| |     BIOLOGICAL PATTERNS     |     
>                        Objective | 
> |<--- Static
>                        |      INORGANIC PATTERNS     |       
>                        Patterns
>                         - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This is Pirsig's way of "encasing" SOM inside the MOQ and not 
really the issue at hand. Much could be said about its 
shortcomings compared to the elegant SOL (the 4th. level is SOM) 
but leave it for now.  

> ...but, according to Bo, "should have" looked like this:
> 
>                DYNAMIC QUALITY -slash- STATIC QUALITY
>                                  (intellectual or S/O)

> [Bo explains]:
> > In the complete MOQ the static range is enlarged with the four
> > levels where intellect comes last [first?].

> > If Pirsig had meant that the top box(es) were to disappear after
> > the splits all would have been fine - SOM would have been the S/O
> > and the MOQ would have been the DQ/SQ - but as it is the top boxes
> > remain and has created the said Quality/MOQ "metaphysics" that
> > seemingly override the MOQ.

This concerns the proto-moq where a grave error has its root. 
Pirsig (first) postulates a pre-S/O reality (all very well) but then he 
starts to draw diagrams, first of SOM where it seemingly also has 
a pre-S/O reality, which it hasn't, then the said proto-moq. Here the 
pre-S/O reality (now turned Quality, but still OK) spawns a DQ/SQ 
dualism (it was really Romantic/Classic but for simplicity's sake)   

The "bone" I keep gnawing at is that the diagram gives the false 
impression that Quality remains whole after the divide, while it 
really has become the Dynamic part of the DQ/SQ pair, ref. my 
diagram above.  

> I gather that Bo wants the primary split to be labeled
> "Dynamic/Static" instead of "Subjective/Objective", "Intellect" to
> be shown under "Dynamic", and all patterns shown under "Static".

My effort to compress the early openings may confuse a bit so I 
better repeat. As said the ultra-first insight was the Pre-S/O where 
S/O is called "intellect" (intellect= the subject confronting a world of 
objects) then the said diagram session where the Pre-intellect had 
become Quality and this splits into Romantic and Classic, Quality 
where the Classic part is called "intellect" and consists of the S/O 
aggregate.  

The final metaphysical split however became Dynamic/Static and 
the static part enlarged to 4 levels whereof intellect (the S/O) 
comes last. Thus my said "bone" here isn't really DQ/SQ instead of 
S/O (this goes without saying), but that the Pre-everything Quality 
must become the DQ part of the DQ/SQ pair. Even if you don't buy 
the MOQ try to follow my reasoning.      

I leave the rest, because it will only clutter this overwhelmingly 
important point.

Bo