[MD] A larger system of understanding

[Magnus Berg]

Platt and all

On 2010-07-08 18:21, plattholden at gmail.com wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> At the risk of beating a dead horse and getting banned I offer the following
> Pirsig quote as further evidence that including the MOQ in the intellectual
> level doesn't make sense.
>
> "The Metaphysics of Quality resolves the relationship between intellect and
> society, subject and object, mind and matter, by embedding all of them in a
> larger system of understanding. Objects are inorganic and biological values;
> subjects are social and intellectual values." (Lila, 24)
>
> Perhaps someone can explain, if the MOQ is a set of subjective intellectual
> values how it can see itself as a set of subjective system of values --  the
> problem an eye seeing itself.

Yes, I can, and I have numerous times, but here we go again.

Intellectual patterns can refer to any other pattern, including 
intellectual patterns and including itself.

See it this way. A snake can't eat itself. It can start eating its own 
tail, and it might at most swallow some of itself but pretty soon it 
just can't swallow more. This is because the snake is not an 
intellectual pattern. The essence of a snake is biological and can't 
consist of itself.

However, an intellectual pattern, like the text in a document, *can* 
refer to itself. For example the book that lays out the MoQ, Lila, 
mentions the MoQ lots and lots of times, and in doing so, the MoQ (the 
book Lila) refers to itself lots and lots of times. That is the power of 
the intellectual level, no other level can do it.

Also, the objective inorganic and bio levels and subjective social and 
intellectual was just something Pirsig said in the SODV paper to make it 
easier for SOMists to understand the MoQ. The subjective prefix you use 
above has no place, doesn't add any meaning, to MoQers. It just blur 
things. A mathematic formula for example, that's an intellectual 
pattern, right? And when you manipulate that formula in your head to 
calculate how many trees you must chop down to build a cottage, then the 
formula is the object and you are the subject. I.e. intellectual 
patterns *can* be objects too.

> For me the explanation is that the MOQ is a larger system of understanding
> because unlike intellectual values, it admits a nonintellectual value, DQ,
> leading to the conclusion that the essence of the MOQ is only understood from a
> mystic, not an intellectual, perspective.

DQ is not a level above the others, it works just as much on lower 
levels as in higher. Also, the words "understood" and "mystic", do they 
really belong in the same sentence? An understanding implies an 
intellectual rational view of some system, but "mystic" removes the 
rationality of it and replaces it with some inner feeling, and in doing 
so, it also removed the essence of the word "understanding".

I'm certain many of you are laughing by now about my ignorance. 
Rationality is the very ghost Pirsig tried to get rid of in both ZMM and 
Lila. And yes, that's true for many human endeavours, but not when it 
comes to discussing a metaphysics. Pirsig made quite a point out of 
Phaedrus' analytical knife when he carved up reality. In that process, 
DQ is only important when seeking the initial inspiration for a certain 
cut. But after that, transpiration takes over in the form of formal, 
rational and static thinking.


> The MOQ escapes the intellectual level by including within its system of
> understanding that, "Thought is not a path to reality,".a direct contradiction
> of intellectual values.

Not a contradiction, just a complement.

	Magnus