[MD] Relativism

[skutvik at online.no]

Mary, Ron, All.

23 may:

Ron had said:
> > 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. 

I don't understand Ron's but Mary obviously does.

[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.  

Agree. The MOQ is clearly "out of SOM" in the sense of being the 
resolution (or dissolution as it proved to be) of the SOM-induced 
paradoxes. However, in the "Summary" (from 2005) Pirsig tunes down 
SOM's role for the MOQ, why he does this I suspect has to do with  
the SOL issue that had started in "Lila's Child" in 2003). Anyway, the 
Quality epiphany may have come like a bolt out of the blue, but it's 
obvious that the underlying motivation for young P. (after leaving 
school upon his "infinite number of hypothesis" discovery) was to find 
relief and safety from the frightening abyss that  had opened under the 
alleged "objective" world) and the relief manifested the known way..      

> 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?

More agreement! So many seem to forget intellect's purpose in the 
static hierarchy context, namely to control social value, and it is from 
this premise its definition necessarily comes out as the value of the 
objective-over-subjective. Like life "thumbs its nose" at all inorganic 
values, intellect does the same at all social values .... and in a sense 
the MOQ does the same at intellect'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. 

There are many who have taken issue with the MOQ as such, but 
these , Struan from old, John, Ham and the various guest stars Case, 
Krimel, Frank Booth - are harmless, their criticism has no impact. The 
real danger are those who seem to adhere to the MOQ and the level 
system  .... up to the intellect, but here drops the Q-tenet about control 
of the lower level and shifts back to some MIND-ish mental container 
of ideas  that not only robs the MOQ of all explanatory power, but 
makes it a SOM subsidiary.        

> 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. 

Right, and right again. Not that I think that it will make it through to the 
those participants who have made the MOQ a person cult and look 
upon our struggle to apply the most important tenets of the MOQ as an 
attack on - and insult of Robert Pirsig.  

Anyway, thanks Mary for a most insightful post, it made my monday..

Bodvar