[MD] now it comes

[Ham Priday]

Horse and all MoQers --

Seeing the recent torrent of posts titled after a comment relating to
Phaedrus's epiphany is enough to make an outsider like myself suspect that
the MoQ must be falling apart at the seams.  After letting the war of words 
play out last week, curiosity finally got the best of me.  I began to read 
some of the arguments on either side, and was relieved to find that such is 
not the case and that Qualityland is still very much intact.

In fact, all that's happened is that Bodvar has at long last spelled out his 
idiosyncratic view of the Intellectual Level in simple terms (as I had once 
suggested), making it more comprehensible and causing a few others to decide 
that they had been on his turf all along.  How disastrous is that?

The issue as I see it is a question of "concepts" vs. "reality", which has 
been defined here as "static patterns" vs. "dynamic quality" or, as Pirsig 
himself once analogized it, "mythos" (without "logos").  The confusion 
arises from the fact that the term intellect has never been systematically 
defined, nor has the locus of sensible awareness.  Why should the absence of 
cogent definitions for what "everybody (instinctively) knows" create a rift 
in interpreting a philosophy that seemingly has so much going for it?

I call your attention to two quotes which, hopefully, will speak for 
themselves in answering that question.  On 7/26 Krimel chastised Magnus for 
"the notion of stacks" about which he intended to initiate a new thread 
pursuant to his A.I. discussion:

[Krimel]:
> Setting up some master set of levels that are alleged
> to apply in any context, seems quixotic to me.

[Pirsig: The MOQ: An Introduction]:
"The Metaphysics of Quality, or MOQ, is simply a philosophic answer to the
question of what is Quality, or worth, or merit, or value, or betterness or
any of the other synonyms for good. ...It says there are two basic kinds of
Quality, an undefined Quality called Dynamic Quality, and a defined quality
called static quality.  Static quality is further divided into four 
evolutionary
divisions: inorganic, biological, social and intellectual.  Our entire 
understanding
of the world can be organized within this framework."

Krimel used the word "quixotic" to characterize devising a "master set of 
levels".  (He was not as genteel in characterizing my "uncreated source".) 
But doesn't that also apply to the MoQ?  The author set about to equate 
Reality with Quality by eliminating subjects and objects and defining 
"experience" as "static quality" in one or more of "four evolutionary 
divisions" (competing levels).  Nowhere in this thesis is there an 
epistemology for the locus of conscious experience, except for the Quality 
from which it is patterned.  Nowhere is there an explanation of the thought 
process, except for "concepts" which are relegated to an ephemeral 
"social/intellectual" domain.  Ideas are simply posited as "good" or "bad" 
concepts, depending upon how well they conform to the alleged intrinsic 
morality of this evolutionary system.

With no cognizant agent designated for this hierarchical paradigm, but every 
pattern from rocks to trees assumed to be experiencing what is "better" for 
its existence, is it any wonder that the function and positioning of 
"intellect" is a matter of contention?

As the MD administrator, Horse has the perfect right to censor, castigate or 
expel any participant for failing to comply with the rules of a forum 
dedicated to RMP's philosophy.  Misrepresentation of the author's thesis is 
a dicey issue, however, particularly when fundamental precepts are left open 
to individual interpretation.  While there is a tendency to assume an 
"official" interpretation, strict adherence to this rule is difficult if not 
impossible in the author's absence.

On matters of content, I would hope that personal opinions shared with other 
participants in accordance with the guidelines are regarded as a means of 
honest enquiry.  For if opposing points of view were to be labeled "heresy", 
it would mean that the subject of discussion is dogmatic, hence not open to 
questioning or free discussion.  I don't believe that was ever Pirsig's 
intention.

[Again from Pirsig: The MOQ: An Introduction]:
"Questions and alternatives go on and on, and one can wander endlessly among 
them.  Even if it were possible to know what they all are it would certainly 
be impossible to include them in a single book. The moq.org website has been 
quite exhaustive in searching for these questions and alternatives.  Anyone 
who has a new question or alternative has a standing invitation to place it 
there."

Respectfully submitted,
Ham