[MD] Intellectual Level

[Mary]

Hello Arlo,

Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 2:19 AM

[Arlo]
First, he makes it clear that SOM, NOT the intellectual level, is the cause
of the paradoxes he mentions. The primary one being that a metaphysical
system is PART of the reality it describes. 

[Mary]
DQ is also part of the system he describes, though that is beside the point.
Does he imagine that at no time in any future could there possibly be any
set of patterns of value that might transcend the set currently valued at
the Intellectual?  That seems an unnecessarily risky assertion.  Based on
the evolutionary model he has constructed, there is nothing to preclude it.

[Arlo]
As one example he talks about a metaphysics that proposes the world is
comprised of subjects and objects, but then thinks that it itself is neither
of these. That is, a metaphysics that says the world is comprised of nothing
but subjects and objects must itself be either a subject or any object. 

[Mary]
I'd agree.  If you set up a system with a clearly stated set of rules, and
say that everything that exists fit, then you've left yourself no out to
define anything new or unforseen.  Sure.  The only outlet you have left is
to continually keep redefining the topmost level to account for anything you
might have overlooked.  Not the best plan.

[Arlo]
The same holds true of the MOQ. A metaphysics that proposes that the world
is comprised of Dynamic Quality and static quality must itself be either DQ
or SQ.
Furthermore, a metaphysics that says that ALL SQ can be described as I/B/S/I
must itself be one of these. It is a fallacy of S/O thinking to propose that
a metaphysics is NOT part, or OUTSIDE, of the reality it describes.

[Mary]
Either that, or it's a fallacy in the way the metaphysics was described.  If
you build up a metaphysics that is in opposition to S/O logic, as we have
here, yet state that the highest attainment of that metaphysics is to a set
of PoVs which value symbol manipulation and science and technology over
social values, then where do you put the patterns of value that say the
symbol manipulation and science/tech are not the most valuable?  You can't
put them in that very same level, can you?  How can one level value the
subject/object logic which has given us symbol manipulation and science and
technology and at the same time not value it?

[Arlo]
What Pirsig does is not "blow away the paradoxes", but shows that attempts
to "blow them away" is the S/O mindset in the first place. Instead, he
embraces a Zen core, a spiritual rationality that answers paradox with "mu",
the acceptance that there will always be paradox precisely because the ANY
symbolic representation of reality (such as the MOQ) will always be
self-referential, incomplete and an analogy.

[Mary]
Yes, the only way to discuss a metaphysics is at the Intellectual Level
where S/O paradoxes exist.  The very act of "discussion" demands it.  Yet
just as values at the Social Level can dimly perceive the value of
Intellectual pursuits, so the Intellectual discussion can dimly perceive the
value of the transcendent patterns it is discussing.  It is hard to
understand Intellectual Level science by using Social Level prayer.  In the
same way, it is hard to understand patterns of value that transcend SOM by
discussing them.  Put another way, you can't learn science by praying about
it, and you can't learn the meaning of saying the world is Quality before
substance by talking about it.

Best,
Mary