[MD] neener neener

[skutvik at online.no]

Andre,  All.

16 Nov.

I had quoted LILA:

    LILA p 68: As long as you're inside a logical, coherent universe 
    of thought you can't escape metaphysics.  Logical positivism's 
    criteria for "meaningfulness" were pure metaphysics..  
    cornered  

...and continued 

> > And this is just right. What characterizes the human race is its
> > relentless ordering of existence. Wherever explorers went the people
> > they met all had a metaphysical explanation of (their) existence. This
> > spelt the transition from the biological to the social level IMO. Had
> > Pirsig just stuck to this great insight all would have been fine, but
> > true to (his) tradition he went on to abolish it by speaking about the
> > Aristotelian kind of metaphysics  "a branch of philosophy ..etc." which
> > is SOM's "subjective description of an reality in itself" something that
> > gives all you arch-somist a handle to destroy the MOQ.

Andre:
> This showed me how you think about the MoQ. You do not 'think' abouta
> it, you experience it and by experiencing it you respond to posts and
> try to convey this experiencing into words. ( This is what gets 'us'
> so confused about your expression sometimes).

I'm happy if this was a foot in your door Andre, but I certainly "think 
about the MOQ" it's just that my thinking (intelligence) has been 
switched from SOM to the MOQ. However, now, I have no trouble 
switching back to SOM, it was the first shift UPWARDS which was 
tricky and happened upon reading ZAMM, guess I was primed for it, 
thus Phaedrus insight that the SOM is Quality's (first - and called 
"intellect" in that book) fall-out was revelation.  

It's the "intelligence-intellect" confusion (the notion that the 4th. level is 
= intelligence) which is the chief stumbling stone, and it may take an 
effort to switch from the SOM where the term "intellect" seems 
chiseled in stone to mean MIND, to the MOQ where its 4th. level IS the 
MIND/not MIND distinction. This switch is no smooth operation, but a 
quantum jump.    

If I write more it just confusing, I would like you to be my "guinea pig" 
Andre. If you don't understand the above, go on pester me with 
objections and protests ... whatever.         

> Anyway, it seems to me that you see the MoQ dynamically, i.e as a
> living 'metaphysics'...something never been done before (hence your
> abhorrence at it being converted by Pirsig as a static pattern of
> value). It isn't. There is nothing 'intellectual' about it. And here I
> go back to the PhD quote: we have to stop conceptualising and start
> experiencing. All conceptualisations will, inevitably, end us up in
> SOM ...the MoQ is 'above' conceptualisations. It is an expression of
> direct experience. i.e. DQ/SQ.

The LILA's quote up above about "not escaping metaphysics" means 
that existence's deepest split is not between concepts and reality  - this 
is merely a variety of the "mind/not mind" distinction i.e:  SOM - but 
between DQ and SQ. Language (manipulation of concepts) entered 
sometime in the social era and "social metaphysics" (myths) were 
created in words,  however at that level no one saw these as theories 
ABOUT anything, it was reality itself . Only with the intellectual level did 
the split between an objective part and a subjective-mind-conceptual 
part occur.

Bodvar