[MD] The strong interpretation of the MOQ (SIM)

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Arlo
Horse has ordered me to engage in a conversation with you 
so I better comply. 

12 July you wrote:

> Why is the following such a seemingly alien concept for you, Platt and
> Bo?
 
> (1) Bo's formulation for a metaphysics is a critical revision of
> Pirsig's metaphysics.

It is NOT, but I guess that's taboo so I did not say it. 

> (2) Bo might say "A metaphysics of Quality that holds the 
> intellectual level to SOM is better than A metaphysics of Quality that
> considers SOM to be one on many intellectual patterns", instead of
> "THE metaphysics of Quality holds the intellectual level to SOM".

Intellect = SOM originates in ZAMM and appears in about 50% of 
LILA, only in Lila's Child did some peculiar "rejection" occur, but after 
my year-long dispute with Paul Turner - and his letter to Pirsig  in 2003  
level - did Pirsig say that that level had bothered him too and then that 
it was no use to speak about Q-intellect before the Greeks AND 
GREEK IN A Q CONTEXT SPELLS SOM. Can't you see this 
Pirsigean "migration"? He starts a SOList in ZAMM, then 50/50% in 
LILA, then sort of a rejection in LC, but then a reversed flight back 
towards the strong interpretation. I must be allowed to defend my 
case. I'm accused of dishonesty but I really wonder who are the liars.         

> Why are you all so obsessively hung up on the word "THE", and what
> value do you think it has?

If I am allowed - because the strong interpretation is no different MOQ, 
as little as the strong interpretation of Quantum Physics (QP) was a 
different QP. It truly  was different from Newtonian (SOM) Physics, but 
proved to be the only QP. And I don't doubt for a minute that the strong 
interpretation of the MOQ (SIM) will prove to be THE MOQ and your 
SOM-MOQ will be left in the dust.    

You know that Einstein was part of the weak interpretation of QP and 
he worked out an experiment to prove the strong faction wrong. So 
now as the leader of the "weaklings" it's up to you to work out the 
experiment that will prove the strong faction wrong. Sharpen your 
pencil!     

> Do you disagree with me that we use the phrase "THE metaphysics of
> Quality" as a conventional way of referring specifically to Pirsig's
> ideas, but that it would in fact be more accurate to say "Pirsig's
> metaphysics"?

Not sure if I get the point here.

> Do you not see that obsessing on the "THE" objectifies the "MOQ" into
> some "reality"... that even Pirsig can be "wrong" about? 

I very much see the MOQ as an expansion of reality, one that tucks 
the old SOM under its wings as a sub-set and thereby dissolves all 
SOM-induced paradoxes. Pirsig's "wrong" was that of returning from 
the wilderness - not going all the way - , but I understand his ordeal as 
a pioneer, he beat a track that we now can make a Sunday excursion 
along, I admire him boundlessly, but he was wounded in his lonely 
fight.      

> This makes no sense. Pirsig can't be wrong about his ideas, but his
> ideas can be wrong. In the same way, Bo's ideas are not "THE MOQ", they
> are his ideas. 

I give you one example of Pirsig being wrong about his own ideas: 
Remember the passage about the "old books of the Bible lacking 
intellectual content" (according to P. in the Turner letter)? It's more 
than clear that they lack SOM - the objective detached attitude is 
totally missing - there are just prophets returning with messages from 
Javeh, no scientific questioning about how burning thorn-bushes didn't 
become ashes or could speak ...etc.  OK, I wrote to Pirsig and pointed 
this out and he obviously felt cornered and started about an "old SOM" 
consisting in warning about crocodiles and "Javeh will reward you" 
promises. It was then I understood that Pirsig no longer "controlled" 
the  MOQ, it has started on a purpose of its own.     

> If we drop the word "THE", and instead simply talk about people's
> ideas, do you not see how all this interpretive nonsense and need for
> authoritative legitimacy would disappear?

I don't understand this need for this distinction. Pirsig will be the  
towering lighthouse in MOQ's history. In a Quantum Physics 
comparison a combination of all the big names, yet in the same 
comparison the "weak vs strong" controversy occurred and only the 
latest technology could settle the score. I don't quite see what 
"experiment" can do that for the MOQ, but all attempts to apply the 
MOQ requires the intellect = SOM, ie. the SIM.   

> In other words, what do you think is wrong with saying "A metaphysics
> of Quality that holds the intellectual level to SOM is better than A
> metaphysics of Quality that considers SOM to be one on many
> intellectual patterns"?

Because you are wrong about Pirsig unambiguously supporting the 
"SOM just one Intellectual pattern". For instance about SOM denying 
morals (creating social havoc) ...etc. It's more than plain that it's the 
entire intellectual level that denies morals,  the "this pattern" was an 
escape when Pirsig discovered the conclusion, and this repeats itself: 
Pirsig said that the social level wasn't transcended in Homer's time 
which is a SOL affirmation, as was the Egyptians as no "intellectual 
culture".      

> Does that not sum up your position? Why is it more important for you
> to say instead "THE metaphysics of Quality holds the intellectual
> level to SOM"?

Because to anyone honest enough to admit it THE MOQ is the strong 
MOQ or it is a dead MOQ.  

Bodvar