[MD] Relativism

[Mary]

Hello Ron,


> Ron:
> Those are some examples, it does not explain how DQ/SQ supplies greater
> explainitory power to Objective intellectual values. The value of a
> DQ/SQ
> explaination is precisly the idea that Objective intellectual values
> are not the only
> explaination of experience.
> Taking DQ/SQ in an objective understanding simply falls to the logic
> trap
> of attempting to solve the problem by using different terms to stand
> for
> the same meaning.
> To say that that matter is static quality and energy is dynamic, really
> is'nt
> bringing anything to the table for scientists. It simply restates that
> all experience
> is objectively derrived from matter and energy.
> 
> nothing new
> 
> It neglects Quantum physics and theory.
> 
> 
[Mary Replies] 
Yes, I completely agree with you, Ron.  SOM is inadequate and explains
nothing about DQ/SQ.  It's not intended to.  It is Pirsig's nemesis
throughout ZMM and the catalyst for his invention (or discovery, if you
prefer) of the MoQ.  It is the thing the MoQ is designed to overcome.  Where
we seem to disagree is in your assertion that this invalidates the idea that
SOM is the Intellectual Level.  

I see again and again how we are all talking past each other.  Would this be
a good time to back up and refer to the original question?  "What makes the
Intellectual Level different from the Social?"  If we can't answer that,
then we can't define the level; and, if we have to conclude that there are
no discernable differences between the Social and the Intellectual, then why
did Pirsig include it?  Maybe it's all just one big Social Level?  Would
that idea float anybody's boat?  Maybe John's?

Ron, I mean, I didn't make up the rules - Pirsig did.  He clearly defined
the four levels as a hierarchy of values/morals.  He says each successive
level originated in the one below.  He explains how they are all composed of
static patterns of value - latched in response to Dynamic Quality - yet are
all in a state of continual tension with each other.  I don't mean to be
pedantic here, but to answer the question we need to be starting out on the
same page and with all the too-ing and fro-ing in the forum, I'm not sure
that we are.  Are these all the basic premises we have?  There's one more,
but to my surprise I got flack for saying it a while back.  This puzzles me,
so if someone would like to argue it out, we could start here.  Pirsig said
the levels are discrete sets of patterns of value that took off on a purpose
of their own from their parent.  I think this is pretty clear from the
literature, but someone, and sorry, but I don't remember who, took issue
with this.  If they'd like to hash this out now, please do so, because it
seems to me we've got to agree on our premises before we can even attempt a
definition.

Best,
Mary