Re: MD MOQ and idealism

From: Joe (
Date: Thu Oct 09 2003 - 16:48:05 BST

  • Next message: Wim Nusselder: "Re: MD Intellectual level - New letter from Pirsig"


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 12:03 AM
    Subject: Re: MD MOQ and idealism

    > Paul and All
    > 3 Oct. You commented:
    > > I agree with Dan, this is a key point in Pirsig's thought - explained
    > > in detail in ZMM but not so much in Lila which concentrates on the
    > > application of the MOQ's evolutionary model to an interpretation of
    > > history. Personally, it was when I considered the relationship between
    > > idealism and the MOQ that Pirsig's ideas really hit home. I'm not sure
    > > how clearly I can explain my understanding but I'll give it a go.
    > Oxford's Advanced: "Idealism ...system of thought in which ideas
    > are believed to be the only real things of which we can know
    > anything." The opposite is realism or materialism and this is another
    > facet of the subject/object aggregate. Do we agree on that?
    > > I think the relationship between the MOQ and idealism is summed up in
    > > the statement Dan quoted from Lila's Child
    > > "The MOQ says that Quality comes first, which produces ideas, which
    > > produce what we know as matter. The scientific community that has
    > > produced Complementarity almost invariably presumes that matter comes
    > > first and produces ideas. However, as if to further the confusion, the
    > > MOQ says that the idea that matter comes first is a high quality
    > > idea!" [Lila's Child p.202]
    > In ZMM Phaedrus rejects BOTH idealism and materialism. The
    > method by which he tackles materialism is by showing that everything
    > is idealist (from the idealist/materialist premises that is). Then he
    > rejects idealism by showing that the idealist/materialist divide
    > collapses faced with QUALITY.
    > Thus the subjective side (ideas) is as invalid as the objective one and
    > this is why I am so disappointed by the said annotation. What has
    > "ideas" to do in a reality he has rid of the SOM? Why re-introduce the
    > very same idealism he had rejected in ZMM? Quality produces the
    > idea/non-idea aggregate said in ZMM ..and that is a most
    > elegant solution.
    > The postulate of Quality coming first I fully accept, but within this
    > context the first static "product" is inorganic value ...and so on
    > upwards until - as ZMM argues - Quality creates the S/O aggregate
    > (subject and objects it says there) which - seen in the light of the
    > MOQ - becomes its intellectual level.
    > Finally - inside the intellectual reality (SOM) - Phaedrus conceives of
    > the Quality Idea ("idea" because intellect only recognises the
    > idea/non-idea dichotomy) but it grew too big for intellect and brought
    > P. outside the intellectual myth - into insanity.
    > This is the kernel of our difference so please stick to it.
    > Sincerely Bo
    > MOQ.ORG -
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    > MD Queries -
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    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 : Thu Oct 09 2003 - 16:43:57 BST