[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Andre 

You said
> Hi Arlo, Ian, I decided to scan Lila again and guess what I found. I
> think it touches on just the point you make. Chapter 24 (i think)'If
> Rigel identified Phaedrus with this intellect vs society code (ie
> SOM)...he certainly picked on the wrong person'. Imho the crucial
> notion here is that Phaedrus has reformulated the S/O divisions in
> favour of morality. ie. patterns of value/morals. To wit: The MOQ
> simply says that intellectual patterns are moral patterns.

Yes, in a Q perspective Rigel certainly was the social value defender, 
but he did not know anything about the author's new system and 
regarded him (the author) as the an intellectual "egg-head" without any 
understanding of reality. About the MOQ replacing SOM and that 
intellect is a moral level, has that just dawned on you?         

> The MOQ is a replacement, an expansion of the paralyzing intellectual
> system which declared morals intellectually illegal (i.e. SOM). 

Right, SOM is the system - the metaphysics - that declares morals to 
be subjective - to reside in our minds (it doesn't really declare them 
"illegal") OK, along comes the MOQ that says that the S/O distinction 
isn't existence's fundament - the DQ/SQ is - but (and here's the crux) if 
SOM's arrival from the Aretê and MOQ's from SOM all takes place 
within an "intellect" which isn't MOQ's 4th level, but good old MIND and 
SOM is back  .... has never been away for you weak-interpreters. 

The only thing that makes sense and avoids all logical bends and new 
Q-generated platypis is the SOM as MOQ's 4th. level - all of it, every 
last bit, that way the Arete-SOM shift was the social-intellectual one 
and ZAMM is harmonized with LILA and the MOQ.    

> Now, why this needs another level, with all the added complications
> inherent is beyond me.

Stop this silly "another level" talk. How many times have I said that the 
MOQ is no static level but the Quality Reality, the "system" that 
contains the intellectual level that - by no twist of logic - can contain the 
system it's a sub-set of. Get it?  

> Us weaklings know this already though but the 'hard' ones remain hard
> headed...or so it seems. I stick to Pirsig's admonition of these
> interpreters.

I see you have learned the twisted vocabulary of the "weak" 
interpreters, as if Pirsig unanimously has rejected the SOL?! 

Bodvar