[MD] The MOQ Intellectual level Revisited

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Andre

24 Nov. you wrote:

> Regarding the 'warming-up' to this answer (the Mind/Matter reference)
> I agreed with you before (seems like years ago) that I thought it
> unfortunate that Pirsig re-introduced these terms in LILA. I have
> since learned to apply these terms very loosely to said levels. For
> me, they are firmly considered and experienced as evolved PoV's.

OK,  but how you "apply it loosely" I wish I understood, Pirsig's here  
"Gefundenes Fressen" for those who haven't understood the first 
thing.

Andre:
> The MoQ has broken the 'stronghold' of SOM (i.e its suggestion that
> the world c.q.reality is made up of subjects and objects) by positing
> Quality as Reality from which static patterns of value are abstracted.
> This 'process', this 'event' is been placed within a moral,
> evolutionary framework.

The MOQ has broken the Subject/Object spell by introducing the 
Dynamic/Static "spell" and relegating the former the position of its own 
static intellectual level. That's the only way to do it, there is no 
"metaphysical trash can" the SOM can be dropped into and forgotten, 
the former world view must find a place within the new WV and this the 
MOQ does perfectly. 

Where have you fetched the "SQ levels abstracted from DQ"? If 
SOM's "abstract/concrete" dualism is allowed in the MOQ it's done for. 
The SQ levels are fallouts from DQ - "creations" if you like, but no 
abstraction please.  

> Bodvar, I sense that the difficulty I have is that you keep on placing
> SOM's 'highest static value' ( i.e its non-absoluteness) at the
> intellectual level to the exclusion of anything else. 

Well, nevertheless it's the fulcrum, if there are non-S/O intellectual 
patterns the 4th. level has turned into a mind-like vessel that contains 
something called "intellectual patterns". Or it becomes a mental ability 
like language (Pirsig's manipulation of symbols). Give me just one 
example of a intellectual patter that isn't S/O.     

> Firstly, the MoQ maintains that the division of reality into subjects
> and objects is a high quality intellectual PoV. It doesn't have an
> issue with this. It does have an issue with it in that it denies the
> existence of value. 

The S/O division (where values are subjective) is SOM, and the MOQ 
indeed has an issue with SOM. The same division as static value is 
MOQ's  4th. level, and a person who have seen the Q context won't be 
able to return to the 4th. level as a true somist, he will regard it for 
what it is  -  the highest static value level. There can't be "low quality 
PoV" only more or less advanced. It's only in the static levels' internal 
view that the higher level regards the lower as evil itself. Us "intitiated" 
will see their necessary interdependence ...we can't be pure 
intellectuals (SOMists) any more, nor pure "socialists" .... and there will 
be peace ever after ;-)            

> LILA goes through much pain to show the 'conversion' of SOM into MoQ
> by changing all into PoV's and thereby resolving many platypi. But here
> I maintain Pirsig's stance (and I agree wholeheartedly with Marsha)
> that,as soon as you talk/write/think about something it has 'become'
> static. The MoQ is a higher static intellectual pattern of quality
> than SOM.

Then existence's fundamental divide is "Non-conceptual/conceptual" 
not DQ/SQ, or are these identical? Pirsig seems to think so from his 
"Quality/MOQ" super-metaphysics that overrides the MOQ. And further 
everything is "intellectual" - must be if both SOM and MOQ are 
intellectual patterns. All container logic - and logic generally - is 
jettisoned. Thanks but no thanks, I'm no "mystic".         

> Not only because of its greater explanatory power but because it
> maintains that these explanations are provisional, always, because
> Quality (reality) cannot be explained..only by approximation.

With adherers like you the MOQ needs no antagonists :-)

Bodvar