[MD] Wanted: A proper foundation

[skutvik at online.no]

Marsha and Ham

On 27 Jan. 

Marsha wrote:

> > I agree with Bo that the levels are important and that the MOQ
> > perspective is above the level hierarchy.  But I think a stronger
> > impact can be made from understanding the nature of the patterns
> > that inhabit the levels.  So here I agree with you.  Once the nature
> > of the patterns is understood, the usefulness of the level structure
> > becomes obvious.  I am concerned that the patterns are seen as
> > independent (inherently existing) entities, just a new name for
> > objects. This I think is the wrong view. RMP has stated that there
> > are no thing-in-themselves in the MOQ, and he has mentioned Buddhism
> > and emptiness, though he has not stated my interpretation directly.

Right, the DQ/SQ divide (instead of the S/O) and the static levels 
is what gives the MOQ its power. However yours about the nature 
of the levels and your concern if the pattern are to be seen as 
independent (inherently) existing entities I find a bit un-called for, 
this is taken care of by the first postulate (existence's ground no 
longer S/O but DQ/SQ).Thus all patterns are static quality and in 
the Q context they are independent and exists very much in 
themselves.       

Ham: 
> So much of Pirsig's language is ambiguous that I sometimes suspect it
> gets in the way of our understanding.  You talk about the possibility
> of MoQ having a stronger impact by our "understanding the nature of
> the patterns that inhabit the levels."  What, exactly, is a "level" if
> not an intellectual pattern? 

Your SOM-intellect (=what that goes on in minds) has nothing to 
do with MOQ's 4th level. As said a million times the mind/matter 
split is abolished inside the MOQ and - consequently - the 
intellectual level is not SOM's mind where everything resides in 
your opinion. You may reject the switch from Subject/Object to 
Dynamic/Static,  fine then all about the MOQ is hogwash, but your 
one leg inside and one outside is plain impossible. Get it?  

> If a tree is a pattern, why isn't the biological process that produces
> it also a pattern?  If a leaf that grows on the tree limb is a pattern,
> why isn't the photo-synthesis by which it is sustained not a pattern? 

Against better judgment I will answer: Who has told you 
otherwise? A tree is a biological pattern and the processes that 
produces and sustains it are inorganic patterns in biology's 
service. Photosynthesis itself is inorganic  yet it's product is used 
to build the tree.   

> Now, I've been accused of unenlightened SOMism because I acknowledge
> the subject/object division of existence.  

SOM (minus "M") is the highest static value so you will not be 
accused (by me at least) for operating from that level's premises, 
it's only when you take its S/O distinction to be realitys ultimate 
ground you are lost.  

IMO

Bo