[MD] Social Intellectual

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi DMB.

24 July wrote:

Bo had said:
> "Intellectual patterns for interpreting reality" is SOM to the hilt.
> An objective reality "out there" with countless subjective
> interpretations "in here". We see how the QUALITY/MOQ meta-metaphysics
> fits this.  Quality now the objective realm with the MOQ one of the
> many subjective interpretations. Good Grief

dmb says:
> This is probably THEE central misconception from which all of your
> nonsense flows. You are interpreting this as if Quality were an
> objective reality, which is exactly what it is NOT. 

Spare me this kindergarten stuff. The MOQ is no "objective" anything 
rather the metaphysics where the subjective/objective distinction as  
reality's ground is abolished, but the Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics 
re-introduces it.

> So-called objective reality is what it is regardless of what we think
> about it and there can only ever be one so-called objective truth
> because there is only one objective reality, the physical universe. The
> MOQ rejects that notion and replaces it with Dynamic Quality. 

The MOQ replaces S/O with DQ/SQ! Period. But Pirsig says that the 
MOQ is just some arbitrary ordering of a greater QUALITY. This is the 
Quality/MOQ meta-meta ... I call and a great thinker like yourself ought 
to see the impossible implications of this.  

> DQ is direct everyday experience, not matter or material reality. It is
> not an objective reality that is what it is regardless of whether or
> not anyone knows about it. As William James put it, "realities are what
> they are experienced as". 

Yes, I have no objection to what DQ is, but this is the DQ of the 
MOQ!!! Its' the Quality that the DQ/SQ is an arbitrary division of I 
protest. 

> This assertion is positioned AGAINST the idea that reality is "out
> there", separate from our experience of it. Instead, the idea that
> reality is "out there" is relegated to secondary status. It's just an
> idea, derived from the primary empirical reality, which is just the
> cutting edge of experience itself and not a thing, not a substance,
> that is not yet sorted into categories like "physical" or "psychical". 

Yes, yes, and yes again I agree with everything that can be said about 
the dynamism of the Dynamic part of Quality, but when the latter-day 
Pirsig wants the  MOQ to be a mere "intellectual interpretation" of this I 
protest.
 
> This is the central idea in both books and if you don't get that part
> then nothing else will make much sense. And that's exactly the part
> you don't get and that's why your equation makes no sense. 

I know you see the snag too, but alas who will admit anything.

> And what the heck is "the QUALITY/MOQ meta-metaphysics"? If that's not
> a conceptual mess, nothing is. That's gotta be one of the most
> convoluted and distorted uses of language I've ever seen. Your posts
> are full of such meaningless, jargonated, hairballs of thought. 

Agree the Quality/MOQ is a mess, but it is the latter day Pirsig who 
has created it. First he goes to great lengths to work out the MOQ, 
then with one stroke he destroys it by making it another mindish idea 
about reality.

> You are wasting everyone's time, Bo. Your theory is a drag and a
> distraction and it has never been used to make a positive contribution
> to any line of thought. According to Pirsig, there is nothing in the
> MOQ that should lead to the conclusion you have drawn and that
> conclusion undermines the MOQ.

Hey, I have saved Phaedrus ideas from the recuperated and brought-
back-to-intellect Pirsig.  

> You've rejected the Pirsig quote above on the premise that Quality has
> now become the objective realm. But the central point of the quote is
> to get rid of the "objective" world as the ultimate reality and
> replace it with Quality as the ultimate reality. 

The MOQ postulates "Quality as Reality" no rejection whatsoever, but 
that reality consists of the DQ/SQ configuration and it is this which 
gives the MOQ its phenomenal explanatory power, you will not find me 
rejecting anything of the MOQ except the horrendous Quality/MOQ 
that truly undermines the MOQ, you better direct your venom to its 
source.  

> You are equating the terms that Pirsig uses in opposition to each
> other. You keep accusing the "weak" interpreters of relapsing into SOM
> but that is just a failure on your part to understand how and why a
> Quality centered metaphysics rejects and replaces the notion of an
> objective reality out there. DQ is immediate experience and Pirsig
> equates it with what James calls 'pure experience'. 

I know this will impress Arlo and the rest of the gang, but you are too 
much of a thinker NOT see my point. You corrected Arlo on the 
Babylonian intellect issue and "love you" for that, as for the Mythos-
Logos as Social - Intellectual point. You can't avoid the SOL if you 
follow MOQ's premises.   

> As the Stanford article on James says,..

> Notice that James and Pirsig are saying that concepts are static while
> reality is dynamic. They're saying that "reality" is the dynamic,
> flowing flux of experience itself. That is nothing like an objective
> physical universe, which an objectivist will tell you is THEE reality
> regardless of whether or not it is experienced by anyone or anything.

For the umpteenth time, I agree whole-heartedly with Dynamic/Static 
as the primary division, it is  the atrocity of making this an arbitrary 
division of something still more dynamic. Can't you get that into your 
head????  

> So to say there is a distinction between reality and the MOQ is to say 
> there is a distinction between direct experience and the concepts
> derived from it. It is the distinction between DQ and sq. On this
> view, so-called objective reality is just a secondary concept derived
> from an immediately experienced reality.

Now I ask you to think. In the MOQ Pirsig postulates the 
Dynamic/Static division of Quality(=Reality) nothing about the static 
part being conceptual, rather that the first static fallout is the Universe 
itself. Yours is the Jamesian distortion of the MOQ that the latter-day 
hungry for philosophical company Pirsig was seduced into believing 
corresponded to his system. 

> Now everything is all straightened out and perfectly clear to you,
> right? And now you'll finally give up on your hair-brianed equation,
> apologize to everyone, right? Now you're gonna send Pirsig a box of
> chocolates and long-stemmed rose, right?

OK, I like your style David and I think your intelligence ultimately will 
bring you to understand that if the Direct Experience/Concepts 
corresponds to the  DQ/SQ the static levels will become "concepts" 
and THAT really is "hairy/brianed" 
 
> Ha, ha, he, he, ha, ha, etc..

> I'm not gonna hold my breath on that one.

You obviously takes my opinion serious and I truly treat yours the 
same way. Only if you declare the "Quality/MOQ" nil and void will your 
flock follow. 


Bodvar