[MD] Bo's right! For all the wrong reasons? (Part1)

[David Thomas]

All,

Since early in the Lila Squad days it was clear that Bo was skeptical of
Pirsig's further development of the Quality idea in Lila. He sensed there
was something wrong with the MoQ picture. When the S.O.D.V paper was
published he came to a full rolling boil and has not turned off the heat
since. It is becoming more and more clear to me he was and is right. But not
in the way that he (or for that matter many others) will be happy with. In
addition as I watch the ongoing conversations here, except for a few of the
MoQ priests, most if not all have some similar concerns.

For instance of those who see value in Pirsig's work none would seem further
apart than Bo and Krimel. Recently Krimel posted:

>[Krimel in Bo's weak versus strong interpretation of quantum physiks thread]
> For about the umpteenth time I regard Pirsig's work especially in ZMM as a
> western explication of Taoism and as such very useful and valuable. When it
> strays from that track it becomes, er, uh, less valuable.

I doubt Bo would strongly disagree with this statement and he may not
disagree at all.  How strange is that? Actually not very. If sales, reviews,
and commentaries are any indication, ZMM is thousands of times better liked
and grocked than Lila. More people find it of higher quality. Years ago I
e-mailed a couple members of the "named intelligentsia" Richard Rorty and
Christopher Alexander about whether they had read Lila and what they thought
of it. Though both read and thought ZaMM was great neither wouldn't comment
on Lila. One hadn't read it and the other had started, but never finished.
Why not? My guess is they he smelled something, a whiff of core wrongness.
Krimel calls it brittleness. Many think limiting the social level to humans
is wrong. Magnus, forever, has argued for more levels. And few if any are
entirely comfortable with the intellect and the intellectual level. The
claim of level discreteness and domination has been questioned.

For those who need refreshing what set Bo boiling is Figure 4
(http://www.moq.org/forum/Pirsig/emmpaper.html) in Pirsig's "Subjects,
Objects, Data, and Value" paper is on the MoQ website. The diagram shows the
standard four MoQ levels grouped in two groups of two the upper two
(social/intellectual) labeled subjective the lower two
(inorganic/biological) labeled objective. DQ is above the levels diagram
with arrows point out and around the levels. At first blush this diagram
seems to indicate that subjectivism
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism) dominates the system. RMP tries
to explain this away in the text.

Bo's is adamant that SODV diagram is wrong. The intellect (and therefore the
intellectual level) is the domination of objective reason, logic, over
subjective emotions or feelings. If we translate the SODV diagram as Bo
wishes the intellectual level turns objective and the others stay the same.
The only subjective level is the social level. Compare this the original
SODV diagram and ask yourself, "What practical difference is there between
these two views?" 

Is there any real difference between "intellectual quality" or "objective
intellectual quality" having the moral imperative to dominant the lower
levels?

In both is not the social level still the bastion of traditional values,
myths, intuition, feelings, and unwarranted, subjective, actions and
conclusions?

Are not the inorganic and biological realms still pursued by science as much
as is possible objectively?

>From my POV these two visions of static levels are for all practical
purposes identical. Yes, yes I understand Bo shifts the MoQ out to the
meta-meta ether, but that is basically a problem of the levels or more
importantly the entire system's order, rules, and definitions. So the
problem that Bo's thinks he has found is not really "The Problem." We will
have to look further.

(To be continued.......bear with me I think slowly and type even slower)

Dave