[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[skutvik at online.no]

Mary and Multitude.  

30 June. you wrote:

> I have no idea where to start.  Away for a few days and the deluge of
> posts is overwhelming.  I asked for an Intellectual Pattern that is
> not SOM based. Of course, someone threw this one out:
 
> > Pirsig:
> > 129. I've always thought this is incorrect because many forms of
> > intellect do not have a subject-object construction. These include
> > logic itself, mathematics, computer  programming languages, and, I
> > believe some primitive languages (although I can't remember what
> > they are).
 
> I am sorry, but I find this absurd.  I have mentioned before that
> Pirsig has from time to time said things that made my hair stand on
> end.  This is one of them.  Everything that has ever passed through
> your head or mine is 'me' (or you) thinking ABOUT something.  Logic
> itself is entirely based in the subject, the thinker, analyzing the
> object, the thing thought about.  Is this not plain?  Mathematics is a
> way to objectify or quantify the same.  As to computer languages, the
> early ones were not blatantly subject-object only because they were
> not yet advanced enough - but that was the goal.  Now days, all
> computer languages follow a strict subject-object model and that the
> earlier ones followed a functional model, which is exactly the same
> thing, only appear different because of differing in the descriptive
> terminology of the day.  Descriptions of anything at all are examples
> of subject-object logic.  A 'description' is 'me' in here, describing
> a thing 'out there'.  Nothing else.  If I am describing the Tao, I am
> objectivizing a mystical experience in terms my logical brain can
> understand.  Nothing else.  Whatever I describe will not be the 'Tao'.
>  Then, of course, there is 'language'.  All language is a form of 'me'
> speaking to 'you'.  Need I continue?  Is this something we need argue
> about?  Really?

Thanks Mary for daring to call the bluff. It was clearly some 
impressive-sounding things that Pirsig summoned at the spur of the 
moment. Regarding language as S/O because of its me/you aspect I 
have reservations about, language arrived with the Neanderthals (they 
say) so - like biological intelligence - it is something intellect has 
inherited and uses for promoting its own values  ...and as is intellect' 
wont has turned into a  "in here" ABOUT "out there".      

> There is far too much volume for me to process each post made in the
> past few days and reply directly, though as I encounter the most
> egregious ones I reserve the right. I haven't even read anything from
> today yet, but I see a definite pattern.

> 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.  

But Mary, some misunderstanding, I agree with you here-  Existence 
(my favorite) is a gradually increasing perception of static Quality, but 
the understanding of the MOQ is only possible after the intellectual 
level is reached and - the understanding requires - transcended.    

> The Social Level values 'morality', but as Pirsig also says (thus
> contradicting himself) it is a 'morality' that has nothing to do with
> Quality.  IMHO, if we were closer to Quality before the Intellectual
> Level it is only because we had not yet chosen to give our tremendous
> egos the free reign they enjoy with the advent of the Intellectual
> Level itself. Social 'morals' kept the Biological ego in check just as
> they keep many other Biological 'urges' under control.  

This is just excellent. Phaedrus of ZAMM looked upon Aretê as Quality 
itself (morality)  and SOM as Quality Lost (amorality) just for the 
reason you say: " if we were closer to Quality before the Intellectual 
Level it is only because we had not yet chosen to give our tremendous  
egos the free reign they enjoy with the advent of the Intellectual Level 
itself". SOM was the advent of intellect, but of course "the tremendous 
egos" only were not given free rein until much much later.    

> When the Intellectual Level broke free of suffocating Social/religious
> strictures, there was no longer anything with enough authority to
> corral ego. 

IMO what's presented as SOM in ZAMM was the emergence 
intellectual level, but it did not gain momentum until much much later 
perhaps after the Renaissance when it started to challenge social 
value in the form of religion. Exactly these things is what is so well 
explained by the SOL interpretation and why Pirsig left ZAMM 
unassimilated with the MOQ is a mystery. Was it that it required the 
SOL?    

> 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' - God or otherwise. There was no Intellectual
> Level before that.  If you question accepted authority you are
> violating a strict Pattern of Value at the Social Level. You cannot be
> operating at the Social Level.  SOM - the Intellectual Level is the
> marrying of these two concepts - ancient subject-object logic with the
> 'new' attitude that snubs its nose at authority and says (basically)
> 'man is the measure of all things'.  These two alone, when combined,
> form the entire foundation of the pattern of values that distinguish
> the Intellectual Level from the Social Level.  If you don't agree, then
> you MUST be able to explain exactly what pattern of values the
> Intellectual Level holds that IS different from the Social Level
> pattern of values.  Does this not make sense? 

I understand what you mean by the (lower case) "s/o" so I'm not going 
to spoil this superb understanding of the social-intellectual relationship 
by any nit-picking.    

> At least, we were recently able to clear up the controversy over
> whether the levels consisted of Patterns of Value that "went off on
> purposes of their own" from previous levels or not.  It was really a
> relief to hear Pirsig affirm this once again in the recent DVD.  Yes,
> he said things that curled my hair in that DVD, but he also said
> things that affirmed his PREVIOUS statements.  If he had failed to
> affirm this one, then indeed all would be lost.  You would have to
> accept an MoQ equivalent to John's, where the levels are turned upside
> down and Intellectual Level values rule all else - no, CREATED all
> else out of whole cloth.  How bizarre.  Or shall we argue about that
> too?

Right you are, but dear John is innocent, he does not understand a 
thing, it's DMB and Horse - and maybe Dan - who carry some unduly 
weight from being Oxford lecturer, owner of this site and author of 
"Lila's Child".  

> Enough for one night. Perhaps later on I'll have the energy to explain
> why I don't believe in "Intellectual bashing" in the way Arlo seems to
> think we all do - even though this should be obvious, but is
> 'obviously' not.  A hint.  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.

Agree onto tears. What irks me is the "defend Pirsig" gang's claim that 
SOM-as-intellect isn't supported by Pirsig. Admittedly,  ZAMM is many-
splendoured, but as you expounded so beautifully (above) it begs that 
conclusion and later in the diagram it is written "out loud".  LILA is 
divided but enough supports SOL. But then "Lila's Child" where God 
knows what had happened to the "latter day" Pirsig. You speak about 
some Pirsig utterances making your hear curl and there are some - 
particularly in the  "missing annotations" section that makes me wince. 
I could give examples but nuff said. 

Thanks Mary, not for "supporting me" but for supporting the MOQ.

Bodvar