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

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi D2 

2 Aug. David Thomas wrote:

> Except for your reliable SOL twists I see little new here except for
> this:

"This"  is the SOL! 

I had said: 
> > 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. 

> So you disagree with this claim by Pirsig also: 

    The Metaphysics of Quality says that if moral judgments are 
    essentially assertions of value and if value is the fundamental 
    ground-stuff of the world, then moral judgments are the 
    fundamental ground-stuff of the world. It says that even at the 
    most fundamental level of the universe, static patterns of value 
    and moral judgment are identical. The 'Laws of Nature' are 
    moral laws. Of course it sounds peculiar at first and awkward 
    and unnecessary to say that hydrogen and oxygen form water 
    because it is moral to do so. But it is no less peculiar and 
    awkward and unnecessary than to say chemistry professors 
    smoke pipes and go to movies because irresistible cause-and-
    effect forces of the cosmos force them to do it. In the past the 
    logic has been that if chemistry professors are composed 
    exclusively of atoms and if atoms follow only the law of cause 
    and effect, then chemistry professors must follow the laws of 
    cause and effect too. But this logic can be applied in a reverse 
    direction. We can just as easily deduce the morality of atoms 
    from the observation that chemistry professors are, in general, 
    moral. If chemistry professors exercise choice, and chemistry 
    professors are composed exclusively of atoms, then it follows 
    that atoms must exercise choice too. The difference between 
    these two points of view is philosophic, not scientific. The 
    question of whether an electron does a certain thing because it 
    has to or because it wants to is completely irrelevant to the 
    data of what the electron does.  

> If as Pirsig claims "moral judgments are the fundamental ground-stuff
> of the world" and "The 'Laws of Nature' are moral laws." Then based on
> what you say above, "the data of what the electron does", as uncovered
> and described by physics, is NOT based on some moral law of nature in
> force or ruling at the inorganic level as Pirsig claims.  All of the
> laws and rules from physics to sociology under the MoQ are strictly
> SOM/SOL based and reside on the intellectual level. If this is true
> then you are rejecting the MoQ pretty much in total. As am I, but as I
> said for different reasons. 

You bet I disagree. The MOQ is a metaphysical system that subsumes 
the old S/O metaphysics as its own static intellectual level. Then to 
make MOQ's levels identical to SOM's various scientific disciplines 
makes it a MOQ a quasi-scientific parody which is it shot down before 
it takes off. So - again - I disagree with this part and also about the Q-
varieties of scientific disciplines - a Q-physics, Q-economy ...etc. -  
"give unto science what science's is and the MOQ what MOQ's is."  
This may deviate from Pirsig, but NOT from the MOQ which is good as 
gold as long as it is allowed to operate from its own metaphysical 
premises and not forced into  its own intellectual level's scientific 
straightjacked. Get it?   

Bodvar