[MD] Relativism

[X Acto]

----- Original Message ----
From: "skutvik at online.no" <skutvik at online.no>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Mon, May 24, 2010 5:50:05 AM
Subject: [MD] Relativism

Mary, Bodvar

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.  

Ron:
What I fail to understand is what greater explainitory power it brings to science
or as you like to call it, the intellectual level.
How does SOL provide greater explainitory power to science?


Bodvar can never answer this question, he usually insists
that MoQ is reality and that DQ/SQ IS the fundemental split.

Say this was so

How does this knowledge provide greater explainitory power?
How does it better our lives?
How would it change science?

Bodvar:
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. 

Ron:
How does MoQ dissolve those paradoxes? by making subject and object
static, correct? If both subject and object are static, how does this differ from
the Objective notion that thoughts are biologically explainable, Indeed,
Subject IS object.


Mary:    

> 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:
Lila ch.24
"What is the purpose of all this intellectual knowledge? the metaphysics of Quality answers,"
 the fundemental purpose of knowledge is to dynamically improve and preserve society."

"Intellect can support static patterns of society without fear of domination by carefully
distinguishing those moral issues that are social-biological from those that are intellectual-social
and making sure there is no encroachment either way."

"whats good is freedom from domination by any static pattern."

> 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. 

Ron:
It all depends on how you interpret it, he says that evolution is a high quality
idea, he says that we may understand experience abit better if we broke
it down into four levels rather than two. If you interpet the levels in terms
of objective existant fundemental constituants of reality which emerge
out of each other, then your understanding is going to be a bit different
than what others believe Pirsig is saying.

Pirsig states that the levels, morally take off on their own, but ,
it is useful and grounding to understand the point of departure
and basic purposes " but it doesent mean children should assassinate
their parents and it doesent mean intellectuals have to assassinate
society." the point is that they have drifted and gotten lost.