[MD] Quality-as-pre-conceptual/MOQ as conceptual.

[skutvik at online.no]

Craig and Dan

13 March you wrote to Dan:
 
> To say t he laws of physics are the same on Earth as on Mars or as
> they were when the galaxies were being formed, is not to make a
> sociological statement about the comparative state of science among
> Earth scientists, little green men & disembodied scientists floating
> around billions of years ago. Rather it’s to say that the same laws
> apply here & there, now & then. If astronomers discover a new galaxy
> forming, they study it for clues to how our own galaxy formed. Â  Why?
> Â  Only because they think the same laws will apply (i.e., interaction
> between similar phenomena will be similar under similar conditions.) 

In "young" Phaedrus time SOM's (intellect's) "O" part (objective 
over subjective) dominated and this was meant to kick its ass. The 
"O" premises is that there is a material world governed by natural 
laws, all observed by the human consciousness. This carried to its 
extreme reveals the paradox and confirms the Sophist's "man the 
measure" sentence. But the MOQ has no subjective leaning, it 
rejects SOM's "S" part as well and it becomes kind of 
embarrassing when Quality is put in Gravity's place proves that 
there was no Quality before Pirsig.

Which is true, the Quality Explanation - the MOQ - came to be with 
Pirsig and disproves the Summary's "Quality/MOQ" assertion. 
Great theories create new realities. Newton's created the Gravity 
Reality and Pirsig created the Quality Reality. However Newton's 
was just a small itellectual/scientific adjustment, and from that 
level seen it's obvious that gravity has been from eternity. The 
MOQ postulates the levels as major reality leaps and the MOQ the 
last and greatest reality leap possible. 

Further it postulates the upper-level-out-of-the-former, thus the 
MOQ isn't out Pirsig's "mind" but out of the intellectual level and a 
person who has entered it's meta-level will see and understand the 
lower level's limited view, particularly intellect's and how its S/O 
repertoire runs into paradoxes regardless the "O-over-S" or "S-
over-O". I know that Dan hate it when I criticize annotations in 
Lila's Child as if they are his, but the latter-day Pirsig is not up to 
his own ideas.              

Bo