[MD] Hot stoves and those who sit on them

[skutvik at online.no]

John, Marsha, All.

30 March John wrote:

> Marsha and Bo, Ron defined SOM as identical with Objectivism.  And
> Intellect is objectification.  So there is a sense in which the
> intellectual level is identical with SOM.

Good, the Intellectual level is the S/O distinction in every conceivable 
sense (SOM minus the "M" which is taken over by the MOQ)   

> However, Bo's problem stems from a problem with Pirsig naming the 4th
> level after "intellect".  It is my assertion that a better term for
> the 4th is the Philosophical level.  

In a sense I agree. Philosophy is identical to intellect both as a term 
and as the Q-level, it's a search for objective truth in contrast to 
subjective nonsense.  However it's nothing wrong with the term 
"intellect", it really means the objective attitude.   

> And I believe there are philosophies which transcend intellectualism or
> objectivism.  The MoQ being one of them.  

Right you are, but here is the catch. SOM has decided that philosophy 
is a subjective theory ABOUT objective reality and this secures 
anything from the breaking its circle. Pirsig made a viable attempt by 
his initial definition of no-one able to avoid metaphysics which makes 
metaphysics =REALITY, but fell back into the Aristotelian flock by his 
slandering of the MOQ as just another theory about reality. That reality 
now was Quality doesn't mean a thing. Reality must be the DQ/SQ to 
have any impact. He had it all in his grasp and then let it go, just in the 
hope that the MOQ would be house clean with Academy ... Phew!

> But there are many hints and nuances of "perennialism" in Pirsig's
> writings to join the MoQ as a non-objectivist cosmology that I find
> this whole shtick of Bo's assigning the 4th level as SOM - value free
> metaphysics, almost as annoying as him relegating all mysticisms to
> social level religious "lower" status. 

I'm not sure if I understand this. The MOQ surely is non-objectivist, but 
it is non-subjectivist too,  the S/O distinction is its intellectual level. This 
you seemed to agree with ...no? Regarding mysticism, subliminal 
experience, pre-intellectual awareness, direct experience ....whatever 
name this indescribably wellspring is given it's reality's dynamic 
aspect. It's just the Semitic type religions I deem social value.    

John to Marsha:

> When you say: 

> >  If one accepts the MoQ, then Reality has gone from being subjects and
> > objects -to- Reality being Quality(Dynamic/static,) from a metaphysics
> > based on subjects/objects to a metaphysics based quality, from a dualism
> > to a monism, from SOM to MoQ. 

> I want to make one point is that according to the MoQ, "Reality" is
> just as undefinable as Quality, eh?  So don't make an ambiguous
> assumption on the meaning of reality in that SOM definition and equate
> it with what the MoQ is saying about Reality.

Marsha is correct, SOM postulates one subjective and one objective 
reality. The MOQ postulates one Quality Reality which is 
dynamic/static-divided. The MOQ does not say  that "reality is 
indefinable ...etc." it says that its dynamic aspect is indefinable, full 
stop!.   

Bodvar