[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[Andre Broersen]

John to Mary:

And you can stomp your pretty little foot and pout all you want, but that
doesn't change the fact that this ME so evident to you, is nuthin' but pure
social hypnosis.

Andre:
Couldn't have said it better John. 'Mary' (or Bob) seems to have this Ego fixation upon which she/he attaches the construction of the entire intellectual level ( which is quite in line with Platt who calls it the 'individual' level, and quite opposite to Bodvar who calls it the object-over-subject level..I am making the assumption that what 'Mary'(or Bob)calls Ego is a 'subject' ditto with Platt's concoc-tion.

This stance denies the basic premise of the MOQ and therefore there will not be agreement on what constitutes the intellectual level for some time. The intellectual level simply calls these concoctions 'figures of speech' and that is what they are. Of course they are (socially) convenient but lack any ontological basis.

I think 'Mary' (or Bob) confuses Ego with a sense of 'self'. BIG difference between those two!

Mary:
All language is a form of 'me' speaking to 'you'.

Andre:
Within the MOQ 'language' is a social pattern of value. So what...'I' speak to 'you'??? Does that mean we are eternally separate and have no common basis? Language is a 'binding' force. That is why it is valued!

Thank goodness we have some patterns within the MOQ intellectual level that can put this little interaction into its proper context (as it did above). Within SOM this little interaction becomes quite problematic it seems...metaphysically speaking.

Mary:
I do not agree with Bo about everything.  For instance, his idea (though  discussed clearly by Pirsig) that Quality was understood by  pre-intellectual  societies.  Bunk.  The Social Level values 'morality', but as Pirsig also  says (thus contradicting himself) it is a 'morality' that has nothing to do  with Quality.

Andre:
You'll have to explain this Mary. This makes no sense at all.

Mary:
The Intellectual Level can  be  summarized as valuing two Patterns of Value.  The subject-object logic we  have been carrying around since the stone-age and before, plus the' attitude' that made it legal to question 'authority'.

Andre:
I have heard Bodvar performing some contortionist acts but this (almost) beats even him. Where do you get this from Mary? Boy, you are confused about the intellectual level!

Mary:
The arguments I've heard so far of how it is that myself and others  in agreement with me are 'anti-intellectual' are actually unwittingly  anti-intellectual.  Priceless irony abounds.

Andre:
I would prefer to call it Ego bloody mindedness on those that continually suggest that Mr. Pirsig is wrong on many counts about HIS MOQ. It is very dis-ingenious to attribute wrong to the other person about things of which you do not have the intellectual (or for that matter the intuitive) capacity to comprehend.