[MD] Marsha's (s)OL

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Marsha,


> I am not extending the idea of "object" to include all sorts of patterns.
> Objectification is a process: "Objectification is the process by which an
> abstract concept is treated as if it is a concrete thing or physical object.
> In this sense the term is synonym to reification." (Wikipedia)  There are no
> independent objects, things-in-themselves, in the MoQ.

Now I am very confused. If there are no objects in the MOQ, then how
can intellect be the process of objectification and manipulation of
objects?


>I have never said I
> supported Bo's SOL, I do agree with Bo that the Intellectual Level is the
> subject/object level.

But I wonder if you mean anything like what Bo means when you say
this. If what you mean is that subjects and objects are intellectual
patterns where "object" is an intellectual pattern that refers to
inorganic and biological patterns, and "subject" is an intellectual
pattern that refers to social and intellectual patterns called people,
then you are in agreement with Pirsig.

However, when Bo calls the intellectual level the SOL, he is saying
that intellect is the value of making subjective/objective knowledge
distinctions. It's seems obvious to me that one can be intellectually
engaged without dealing with such a philosphical issue, and I've never
understood why he sees each level as a single value rather than as
collections of types of patterns of value.


> I agree with Bo that there should be a Quality Level
> above the Intellectual Level that represents unpatterned experience (DQ) and
> patterned experience (sq (static patterns of value)).

Here you are getting heretical for sure. The levels are collections of
static patterns. How could there be a level of unpatterned experience
if levels are collections of types of patterned experience? In
Pirsig's MOQ, there are four collections of static patterns and DQ.
Everything is included in these four static levels and DQ.


> There is no self, and no independent, inherently existing entities with the
> MoQ, unless seen through the subject/object illusion.  Since subjects and
> objects do not exist within the MoQ, please explain to me the metaphysical
> significance of subjects and objects in this forum?

The metaphysical significance of these terms is what MOQers want to
undermine. Subjects and objects are treated as essences to show the
absurdity of treating them as essences.

>And please explain to
> me RMP's orthodox MoQ?

By "orthodox" I just mean interpreting the MOQ as Pirsig does. By
"heretical" I mean adding levels or redefing the levels in ways that
are inconsistent with Pirsig's MOQ. If the MOQ becomes something more
than a place holder for Pirsig's philosophy, then such "heracies" may
someday become schools of thought in the way that pragmatism is not
just a place holder for what Pierce thought. There are different views
on pragmatism and labels for different traditions within pragmatism.
Pirsig's MOQ may then be something like "the Classical MOQ" where MOQ
may be used in a broader way.

Best,
Steve