Re: MD food for thought

Date: Thu Sep 12 2002 - 13:38:00 BST

Hi "Fletcher" Squonk.
On 8 Sep you said:

> Mon capitain!
> More garbage from the helm.

Am I still in charge? I thought I had been put in the lifeboat ...etc.

Sq: You invented me as mutineer. I rather think of myself as a fool.

> The Objective realm is value also.
> That's what unites the SOM divide - the recognition that its all a
> series of values emerging from an aesthetic source.

After a few days this gave me the smallest of epiphanies.

Sq: Only a small one? Or was it a false dawn over the yardarm?

You sound genuinely exasperated and I have pondered why, it must be some
misunderstanding somewhere and now I possibly understand.

Sq: Well if there is a problem with an individual disagreeing with you it
MUST be his fault and not yours? That could never be the case could it?

You have dead-locked on to the "metaphysics" part and believe that I want SOM
to be
Q-Intellect in its "MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM" capacity and in that case I
deserve to be set adrift - keelhauled and whipped through the fleet even. But

my idea is that the intellectual level is the VALUE of the subject/object
which means that the "M" rank is handed over to METAPHYSICS of Quality
- and from that point of view Intellect's S/O is a mere static value, but the

one from where the Q-idea has emerged. Does this make sense and/or any

Sq: Subject/Object metaphysics is not the only intellectual pattern of value.
It is, in fact, a small and restricting side show that got out of hand and
became the main attraction. It's roots are cultural, and Intellect has used
this cultural side show to promote it into the limelight.
The MOQ did not emerge from this inflated side show soft lad. The MOQ emerged
You fail to see this, which is quite clearly written of in Pirsig's work
because you believe your own guff. (And by the way, this IS the isn't
it? Or am i mistaken? Has the home secretary had to take stern measures to
curb the rising tide of people thinking they are in the whenever they
happen to log into the site?)

>To suggest SOLAQI
> is to reinforce a mistake. SOM does not control, it divides and
> directs in an aesthetically displeasing way.

The S/O as SOM (a metaphysics) does all the bad things you say and many
more, but the S/O - as the intellectual value - is the only value capable of
checking social value.

Sq: Social value is checked by social methods. METHOD? Oh, but you are not
onto that are you? Intellectual values protect themselves by supporting
social methods of checking social values. Intellectual methods can only sit
back and hope that these methods are severe enough to do the trick, otherwise
a latch slips and is lost.
You really are into your own rubbish aren't you?

> SOLAQI has no Art about
> it.

I had hoped that Platt would enlighten you at this point.

Sq: Oh i see! Number one has to deal with the unruly crew whenever they get
too stroppy does he? Not a fitting job for mon capitain to filth his hands
with is it? Not important an area for the great man to bother himself about?
After all, its only ART isn't it? And its not as if you are an artist or
anything like that?

> The answer, should you wish to ever release your ego and wake up,
> is to see that an expansion of rationality towards its aesthetic
> source will harmonise and unite in a meaningful and appropriate
> course.

Rationality HAS expanded in the the form of the Quality Idea, can't you get
that into your head?


Not at all.
What IS all this Quality idea? This is YOUR language for pity's sake man, it
is not the language of Pirsig.
Quality must be used in order to show that rationality emerges FROM quality,
and is but one METHOD we may wish to use - but not the only intellectual
The MOQ shows the way, but you have dragged things back by insisting that the
MOQ emerged from S/O thinking!

Subjects and Objects existed in the time of Homer and Ancient Chinese
culture, but intellectual patterns still flourished. People were individuated
in name and many other culturally dominant ways, but intellect could still
deal and mediate them.
Was not stone henge an intellectual construction in part?
Quality was driving their development and this was recognised in the Tao.
Pirsig comes along at a time when rationality has insisted that intellectual
patterns are restricted to a few methodologies and that such methodologies
may only be transgressed by being excluded from the rational - which is but a
To suggest, as you do suggest, that quality as an idea emerged from a
methodology is ridiculous.
I had a rough time dealing with you because i took you seriously.
It took me a long time to realise that what you are saying is what you
believe, and that came as quite a shock after the laughter had subsided.

All the best,

Mail Archive -
MD Queries -

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:31 BST