RE: MD What comes first?

Date: Tue Aug 19 2003 - 08:29:02 BST

  • Next message: "Re: MD Intersubjective agreement"

    Paul, David, All.

    Wait for me! I had written a reply to David's opening of this thread (the
    16th), but before it was ready you two were into your fifth(?) round.

    David's puzzlement centers on Pirsig saying that the "highest quality
    intellectual pattern" (aka "common sense") which says that inorganic
    matter comes before ideas, is wrong because common sense (as a
    set of ideas) comes before matter. David is all correct, but the REAL
    wrongness - what forces even Pirsig into this impossible dead end -
    stems from the premise that SOM is one intellectual pattern and that
    the MOQ is another.

    In my own input on this (before David's) I pointed to the claim that
    "common sense" is a set of ideas and thus before matter ends in
    absurdity because everything dissolves into sets of ideas. Pirsig
    succeeds in proving that ideas are primary, no doubt, but they
    become all there is. A weird universe where the idea of matter before
    ideas are replaced by the idea of ideas before matter ...etc.

    Paul tries to save things by a new quote where Pirsig says the
    opposite, and sure, he speaks true moqish most of the time, the
    nonsense stems from the impossible definition of intellect as a realm
    of ideas, where SOM is a "high" - yet no good - idea. (see Paul, all
    patterns of a level must belong to the same value!) This will haunt the
    MOQ as long as the current definition is maintained, and I am a little
    puzzled by David who sees these things so clearly, yet refuse to
    address the root problem.

    Once the intellect is seen for what it is really is, namely the eternal
    S/O see-saw - in this case what comes first: matter or ideas - things
    are straightened out. To return to the puzzle above. Don't
    misunderstand me, Pirsig WAS correct; his insight that everything
    ends up in the said absurd solipsism is valid from the SOM's
    premises, and P. of ZMM started from SOM. Its log-jam is what the
    QUALITY insight saved him from: Quality gives rise to the S/O divide
    itself. Its "impossibility", however, is due to it being a mere static level
    not reality itself (SOM).

    But returning with this "idealism" afterwards it only makes a mess of
    the MOQ. There is this little thing, however, that redeems it all. In
    annotation # 102 he says.

        Since at the most primary level the observed and the
        observer are both intellectual assumptions, the paradoxes of
        quantum theory have to be conflicts of intellectual assumption,
        not just conflicts of what is observed. Except in the case of
        Dynamic Quality, what is observed always involves an
        interaction with ideas that have been previously assumed.

    He starts in the usual vein about the observer and the observed
    (subject and object) both being intellectual assumptions (intellectual
    patterns), but suddenly in an aside he says that Dynamic Quality is
    excepted from the this closed circle. How can that be if the MOQ is
    another pattern in the mind-defined intellect? Clearly, here he
    FINALLY returns to the true MOQ where Quality is the mother of the
    observer/observed pair, which then - separately - aren't intellectual
    "assumptions", rather - as a pair - is one of intellects countless

    To return to the question "what comes first". Once the postulate of
    Quality being outside the mind/matter (observer/observed) is made,
    the static inorganic level comes first, but it has nothing to do with
    SOM's substance.


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 19 2003 - 08:31:02 BST