[MD] a view

[skutvik at online.no]

Arlo 

7 Apr. 

[Bo] before:
> > Because the 4th. level is both the springboard and the barrier to the
> > MOQ.

> [Arlo]
> In the same way the social level is springboard and barrier to 
> intellect? Or the biological level is springboard and barrier to
> social patterns?

Exactly!

> So for YOU (and the rest of the MOQ-enlightened), since you know
> intellect's Q-position, do YOU have to kill all intellectual patterns
> for morality to be served? Or once one is MOQ-enlightened, does this
> "killing" cease to be necessary?

Once the MOQ is realized intellect's "career" as SOM is over, it has 
become a static quality level. We can go on about of mind and matter, 
subject and object  without being metaphysically bothered. 

> The way I read what you say above, is that the "killing" of 
> intellectual patterns is the process of placing them into their 
> "Q-positions". Once done, we needn't keep "killing" them, do we? Once
> we are "enlightened" as to intellect's "Q-position", we can serve
> morality by championing intellect, correct?

Absolutely. 

> My position has never changed. I agree with Pirsig. And your 
> statement that this means "SOM rules" has no substance. Its kind of
> like your ongoing "dismissal stick" you use to denigrate those who
> disagree with you, nothing more. "Oh, you agree with Pirsig? Well then
> you're SOM." Whatever.

If intellect  is a MOQ subset then saying that the MOQ is contained by 
its own subset violate every logic there is. The MOQ is no intellectual 
pattern rather the Quality Reality.    

> How was biology "killed", unless you think its a metaphor for "tamed"
> or "controlled". In that case it changes the Pirsig quote Marsha
> provided significantly.

Agree, the "tame" and/or "control" terms are better.
 
> While sustaining biological and social patterns
> Tame/Control all intellectual patterns.
> Tame/Control them completely
> And then follow Dynamic Quality
> And morality will be served.
 
> You'd agree with this then? The goal would be to place intellectual
> patterns in service of what you propose to be the next higher level,
> the MOQ.

Yes! yes and yes again. 

 The same way society should dominate biology, and intellect
> should dominate society, you think the MOQ should dominate intellect?

Yes, "dominate" is OK. 

[Bo] before
> > In the a social-focussed culture like the Muslim the islamist 
> > movement can use (devour) the biology of the suicide bombers and
> > "pilots" to forward their cause. (just one example)

> [Arlo]
> This really makes no sense. I mean, are you now suggesting that 
> society NOT dominate biology? 

What's the problem. The muslim culture is social value-focussed and 
accordingly spends biological life freely.   

> Or are you suggesting that Western cultures do not "devour" biology to
> "forward their cause"? And what does this have, at all, to do with the
> conversation at hand? Just an excuse to talk politics?

In the  Western culture the social level is dominated by intellect, but if 
the bells toll - like the 11. september -  and intellect is left powerless 
the social level is the next "safe latch" and it's patriotism, flag-waving 
and war (spending of biology to defend the society) but this is a society 
ingrained with intellectual value so  the spending of life isn't with such 
abandon. Politics? Is that a separate realm exempted from this 
discussion?

> [Arlo]
> Well, you didn't answer my question. In LILA, when discussing the
> hippie movement, Pirsig claims its morality derived from its being
> against BOTH society AND intellect. Considering Marsha's quote (about
> preserving social patterns and "killing" intellectual ones), would you
> say these reflect different positions? Or are they compatible?

Yes, LILA correctly says that the hippies went against both society and 
intellect, further that their their anti-everything only left them the with 
the biological (drug) option. Marsha's quote (which was Pirsig 
paraphrasing some Buddhism text has no relevance regarding the 
hippies.      

> But since you do seem to agree that "intellect" is a barrier to "MOQ
> enlightenement", and as such intellectual patterns should be "killed",
> do you have any insight into how this should be achieved? Yoga?
> Meditation? Drugs? How did YOU kill your intellectual patterns, Bo, so
> that you could become one of the enlightened? Pirsig describes his
> experiences with peyote as a prime catalyst for his "enlightenment".

My personal intellectual (as-SOM) patterns were killed that memorable 
night I read ZAMM for the first time and realized that the Mind/Matter 
monster (as I knew SOM as) had met its end at the hands of this 
mysterious RMP. He called SOM "intellect" in the proto-moq mind you.  

> Or is it as simple as willfully ignoring intellect as something "bad"?

In its SOM role intellect created a bleak outlook with qualities only 
figments of our minds with the real world an indifferent material mass. 
As the value of this S/O distinction (without the "M") it's the highest and 
best static level.   

Bodvar