[MD] Bo's right! For all the wrong reasons? (Part1)

[skutvik at online.no]

Dave T, All.

31 July you wrote:

> Since early in the Lila Squad days it was clear that Bo was
> skeptical of Pirsig's further development of the Quality idea in
> Lila. He sensed there was something wrong with the MoQ picture. When
> the S.O.D.V paper was published he came to a full rolling boil and
> has not turned off the heat since. It is becoming more and more
> clear to me he was and is right. But not in the way that he (or for
> that matter many others) will be happy with. In addition as I watch
> the ongoing conversations here, except for a few of the MoQ priests,
> most if not all have some similar concerns. For instance of those
> who see value in Pirsig's work none would seem further apart than Bo
> and Krimel. Recently Krimel posted: 

    [Krimel]

    In Bo's weak versus strong interpretation of quantum
    physiks thread] For about the umpteenth time I regard Pirsig's
    work especially in ZMM as a western explication of Taoism and as
    such very useful and valuable. When it strays from that track it
    becomes, er, uh, less valuable.  

> I doubt Bo would strongly disagree with this statement and he may
> not disagree at all. 

Krimel isn't my favorite companion, but in this your comparative study 
it may be useful, at least when he (Krimel)  brought up this Tao issue it 
was in connection with the "Quality/MOQ" meta-metaphysics (I call) 
Well let me not start on that, but follow your (freight) train of thought.   

> How strange is that? Actually not very. If sales, reviews, and
> commentaries are any indication, ZMM is thousands of times better
> liked and grocked than Lila. More people find it of higher quality.
> Years ago I e-mailed a couple members of the "named intelligentsia"
> Richard Rorty and Christopher Alexander about whether they had read
> Lila and what they thought of it. Though both read and thought ZaMM
> was great neither wouldn't comment on Lila. One hadn't read it and
> the other had started, but never finished. Why not? My guess is they
> he smelled something, a whiff of core wrongness. Krimel calls it
> brittleness. Many think limiting the social level to humans is
> wrong. Magnus, forever, has argued for more levels. And few if any
> are entirely comfortable with the intellect and the intellectual
> level. The claim of level discreteness and domination has been
> questioned. 

IMO those referred to philosophers may not like ZAMM and dislike 
LILA for the right reasons. And some discussers' tinkering with the 
levels - Doug Renselle with the inorganic and Magnus with the social - 
I personally have no stomach for. The MOQ's levels are perfect hadn't 
it been for the ambiguous 4th. intellectual as presented in LILA. And 
then Pirsig's own attack on the MOQ with his "Quality/MOQ" utterance 
in the "Summary" but that has nothing to do with its validity.     

> For those who need refreshing what set Bo boiling is Figure 4
> (http://www.moq.org/forum/Pirsig/emmpaper.html) in Pirsig's
> "Subjects, Objects, Data, and Value" paper is on the MoQ website.
> The diagram shows the standard four MoQ levels grouped in two groups
> of two the upper two (social/intellectual) labeled subjective the
> lower two (inorganic/biological) labeled objective. DQ is above the
> levels diagram with arrows point out and around the levels. At first
> blush this diagram seems to indicate that subjectivism
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism) dominates the system.
> RMP tries to explain this away in the text.

Exactly. The said diagram (how Pirsig sees the MOQ subsuming 
SOM) is misleading. According to the strong interpretation SOM is the 
4th. level. no more no less. It makes short thrift of all conceivable 
SOM-induced paradoxes. They simply dissolve, no complex 
deliberations over how mind and matter interacts by way of the 
biological social level or anything.      

> Bo's is adamant that SODV diagram is wrong. The intellect (and
> therefore the intellectual level) is the domination of objective
> reason, logic, over subjective emotions or feelings. If we translate
> the SODV diagram as Bo wishes the intellectual level turns objective
> and the others stay the same. The only subjective level is the
> social level. Compare this the original SODV diagram and ask
> yourself, "What practical difference is there between these two
> views?" 

The intellectual level turning "objective" and the social "subjective" isn't 
part of the SOL. Objective and subjective only rules within the 4th. 
level. Otherwise, about the 4th. level being the objective, rational, 
detached  approach is correct, this automatically spawned the 
subjective, irrational, emotional counterpoints so - again - these are 
intellect-induced. The social level isn't subjective ...etc. It's before the 
S/O divide!!!!           

> Is there any real difference between "intellectual quality" or
> "objective intellectual quality" having the moral imperative to
> dominant the lower levels?

There is a big difference between the "orthodox" 4th. -  mental, 
thinking - level and the "objective" level. The former is SOM's mind 
while the latter is MOQ's originally "intellect" as conceived by 
Phaedrus.  

> In both is not the social level still the bastion of traditional
> values, myths, intuition, feelings, and unwarranted, subjective,
> actions and conclusions?

That's a correct assessment of the social level, but this is not the way 
most social-level-tinkers see it. The worst such -  Magnus - sees 
societies round every corner, anything composed of lesser 
components is "social value" to him. Then there were those who 
wanted social value to be mere nit-witted copying behavior (Wim 
Nusselder) Nothing of this is valid in a SOL context, the social level 
inhabitants (we are such, it's still part of our constitution) are as 
intelligent as anyone, just not of the skeptical, rational kind.     

> Are not the inorganic and biological realms still pursued by science
> as much as is possible objectively?

????  At least the physical realm that the scientific discipline "physics" 
studies is NOT the static inorganic value level, this goes for science's 
"biology" and "sociology".     

> From my POV these two visions of static levels are for all practical
> purposes identical. Yes, yes I understand Bo shifts the MoQ out to
> the meta-meta ether, but that is basically a problem of the levels
> or more importantly the entire system's order, rules, and
> definitions. So the problem that Bo's thinks he has found is not
> really "The Problem." We will have to look further.

If the up above was cryptic, this is enigmatic, and I can't but drone on. 
The MOQ levels have nothing to do with SOM's physics, biology, 
sociology and/or  psychology. All these - as S/O derivatives - are 
confined inside MOQ's 4th. level. Oh yes, all problems connected with 
the "orthodox" - weak - interpretation is resolved by SOL's - strong - 
interpretation. 

Will follow up with an assessment of your part 2.

Bodvar