[MD] A fly in the MOQ ointment

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Dave T.

23 March:

Bo before:
> > Right Phaedrus' (ZAMM) target was "rationality" or SOM, which he
> > called "intellect" in the proto-moq,

D.T.:
> Here are the only instances of the word "intellect" being used in
> ZaMM.

You forgot (purposely?) the proto-moq where Classic Quality is called 
"Intellectual Quality"  and splits into subject and object. This clearly 
indicates that Phaedrus original idea was SOM as intellect ... no?

> ZaMM- Pg 19:"My own opinion is that the intellect of modern man isn¹t
> that superior. IQs aren¹t that much different. Those Indians and
> medieval men were just as intelligent as we are, but the context in
> which they thought was completely different. Within that context of
> thought, ghosts and spirits are quite as real as atoms, particles,
> photons and quants are to a modern man. In that sense I believe in
> ghosts. Modern man has his ghosts and spirits too, you know."

He obviously had a touch of the "intellect=intelligence" disease, and 
that has caused the MOQ much trouble - ALL its trouble.  
 
> ZaMM- Pg 77: Kant¹s metaphysics thrilled Phædrus at first, but later
> it dragged and he didn¹t know exactly why. He thought about it and
> decided that maybe it was the Oriental experience. He had had the
> feeling of escape from a prison of intellect, and now this was just
> more of the prison again.

SOM was MOQ's antagonist and when he here sees intellect as a 
"prison" it indicates the SOL again .... and again and again.     

> Perhaps you can explain how from these two examples how any rational
> person can arrive at your conclusion that "Phaedrus called rationality
> or subject/object metaphysics "intellect"?

The proto-moq is my "crown exhibit", but the SOL pops up all over the 
place as your post shows, and Paul Turner's alleged rejection of it. 

[ZaMM]
> > "The Metaphysics of Quality says that science's empirical rejection
> > of biological and social values is not only rationally correct, it
> > is also morally correct because the intellectual patterns of science
> > are of a higher evolutionary order than the old biological and
> > social patterns. 
 
[Bo]
> >He speaks of  "...the intellectual patterns of science ..." as if
> >there are other non-scientific or irrational intellectual patterns,
> >but that's absurd.
 
> Based on the following quote:
 
> > [Lila -pg 79]
> > Third, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of the
> > intellectual order over the social order - democracy, trial by jury,
> > fre edom of speech, freedom of the press.
 
> What are you going to claim?
> That democracy, trial by jury, freedom of speech, freedom of the press
> are:
 
> Absurd? Irrational? Intellectual patterns of science? Not intellectual
> patterns but intellectual moral codes? (Best choices but it still won't
> help you. The codes are intellectual patterns too because the whole
> metaphysics of quality is a metaphysics which is an intellectual
> pattern of quality) Or are you going to claim that once again that
> Pirsig is mistaken. 

Well, when he rejects the SOL he is mistaken, but so much of his 
writings supports it. However you display little understanding of the 
very idea. By being "static" all levels are incomplete yet do not "know" 
it, thus intellect regarded its S/O split to be existences very fundament 
(SOM) and this  created the known absurdities. However, even if 
intellectual patterns dissolves into its social parent (if examined 
thoroughly) one can't deny their VALUE (democracy, trial by jury, free 
speech and press ...etc.) and the explanation of this was MOQ's 
revelation for me,  

Phew! Speak about resolving metaphysical disputes at the end of 
each sentence ;-)        

> > The MOQ must NOT appear as a mysticism.....
 
> We do agree here in that the MoQ's ties to mysticism and mysticism
> ties to both religion and the occult are significant problems. Much
> more significant than the relationship of the intellectual level to
> the other levels.

IMO "mysticism"  is the Western term for Oriental "religions". In the 
light of the MOQ we see that they have escaped intellect (in its SOM 
role), yet, not having any "system"  (like the DQ/SQ distinction and the 
static levels) Buddhism seems enigmatic from our point of view. As 
said before I did not understand it until the MOQ opened the door for 
me. 

Bodvar