[MD] Relativism

[Mary]

Hi Ron,

On Behalf Of X Acto
> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 10:18 PM
> 
> 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?
>
[Mary Replies] 
The Intellectual Level is more than just science.  Science is but one
(inevitable) consequence of SOM POVs.
 
> 
> Bodvar can never answer this question, he usually insists
> that MoQ is reality and that DQ/SQ IS the fundemental split.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
Bodvar is right.  In what way do you disagree with this?

> Say this was so
> 
> How does this knowledge provide greater explainitory power?
> How does it better our lives?
> How would it change science?
> 
[Mary Replies] 
Science is limited severely by the constraint of insisting that all of
reality is composed of subjects.  I am no physicist, but as a layman I see
evidence of its inability to account for what is observed in particle
accelerators, for instance.  

There is a need for a new paradigm in science which, as Pirsig explains, can
be provided by the MoQ.

> 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 Replies] 
How does the MoQ dissolve those paradoxes?  You are asking me?  Why?  Is it
because you honestly do not know?  If so, please read ZMM and Lila where
Pirsig explains the paradoxes and how the MoQ dissolves them.  If, on the
other hand, you are asking because you do not see how
SOM-as-the-Intellectual-Level dissolves them, we can discuss that.
  
> 
> 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."
> 
[Mary Replies] 
What separates the two is the Intellectual tenant that nothing should be
believed that cannot be verified by observation or experiment; but this
presupposes an observer and an observed, does it not?  If you disagree with
the first, I would ask you to explain.  The Social Level is dominated by
patterns which teach nothing so much as the value of community, authority,
and celebrity.  Things which are devalued by the Intellectual Level.

The static levels are best viewed as having a circular relationship rather
than a hierarchical one since, as you point out, the Intellectual Level must
"support static patterns of society without fear of domination".

 
> "whats good is freedom from domination by any static pattern."
> 
[Mary Replies] 
Or, in other words, what's good is DQ.

> > 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.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
I'm not sure what you are objecting to here.  I believe Evolution, per se,
is a high Quality Biological pattern of value.  I believe the static
patterns of one level emerge in opposition to the assumptions made by the
static patterns of the parent, yet each successive level depends utterly on
all those below for its own existence no matter how much each level's SPOVs
might value that this were not so. 
 
> 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.
> 
> 
[Mary Replies] 
Come again?  I don't understand what you are saying here.

Best,
Mary