Introduction

Robert M. Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality, as proposed in his second book Lila; An Inquiry into Value, abandons any subject/object distinction in favor of experience, or static quality patterns of value, plus Dynamic Quality, which cannot be defined in any way. In this paper I hope to explore whether it is possible for those of us steeped in Western cultural traditions demanding subject/object distinctions to appreciate what Pirsig is saying and still hold on to our everyday way of subjectively objective perceiving reality. In other words, is Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality understandable from subject/object points of view? Or does understanding of MOQ  require, for lack of better terminology, epiphanies or leaps of faith leaving behind any mention of subject and/or object? These questions are crucial to teaching and/or learning about Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality. If it can be understood from subject/object distinctions then it can be taught to others in traditional teaching style. If epiphany is required then it cannot be taught in traditional teaching style. Or is real understanding a matter of blending traditional with non-traditional?

In order to examine these questions I researched early archive files of The Lila Squad discussion group. My attention was drawn to Bodvar Skutvik and emergence of his Subject/Object Logic as Quality Intellect (SOLAQI). Therefore I decided perhaps more in-depth focus was indicated into Bodvar's attempt at marrying Subject/Object Metaphysics (SOM) and Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality (MOQ). Anthony McWatt interpreted Bodvar's idea in very helpful ways and I have referenced some of his comments as well but only used some private Pirsig quotes Ant so generously provided. I am not so much seeking to verify or vilify SOLAQI as I am seeking to expose this idea to scrutiny in hopes of shedding greater enlightenment into Quality.

Normally I use very few acronyms in my own writings, but in putting together this overview of Bodvar Skutvik's "Subject/Object Logic as Quality-Intellect" idea it seemed best to follow Bodvar's lead in using these selected acronyms:

Acronyms

InPoV - Intellect Pattern of Value
MOQ - Metaphysics of Quality
SAIOM - Subject/Object Metaphysics as Intellect of Metaphysics of Quality
S-O - Subject Object
SOLAQI - Subject/Object Logic as Quality-Intellect
SOM - Subject/Object Metaphysics
SOTAQI- Subject/Object Thinking as Quality-Intellect
ZMM - Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
 

Emergence of SOLAQI

As Good ideas often do, Bodvar's SOLAQI has evolved over time. Rather than following these developments linearly it seems best to simply begin medially.  Acronyms in Bodvar's early attempts at definition included SAIOM (SOM as intellect of MOQ) and evolving from that was SOTAQI (Subject/Object Thinking as Quality-Intellect). On June 10, 1998 Bodvar writes:

A while ago I introduced the SAIOM idea (SOM as Intellect of MOQ).
Magnus accepted it in its original form and after a little
modification did Hugo find it compatible with his own ideas (so
did Donny I believe?) while Horse and Richard are doubtful. Anthony
has not responded to the last version. The modification is SOTAQI
(S-O thinking as Q-Intellect) which means that Q-Intellect
(generally) is the ability of an individual (biological organism) to
view itself as different from other (society) and thereby give rise
to the subject-object intuition which in time grew into the
S-O-METAPHYSICS.

According to this idea are "consciousness", "awareness",
"intelligence" and all other mind-evoking expressions (sedimented
from the primordial S-O abstraction) collectively the Q-Intellect.
There is no awareness at the Inorganic level or consciousness
at the Biological level, but please note: those terms aren't the
"supernatural" capabilities of SOM, but (merely) the highest
value-patterns.

Still "Quality is Reality" so valueing goes on at all levels. Atoms
aren't matter particles passively reacting to natural laws, but moral
entities valueing Inorganic quality. And so on up through the
Q-hierarchy.

What do we mean when we say "thinking" or "logic" as pertaining to Pirsig's MOQ?
In this May 25, 1998 discussion Donny Palmgren asked Bodvar:

Doesn't Pirsig indicate that Intellectual patterns = logical, rigerous, systematic thinking, like science and philosophy.

He does, and those patterns are Intellectual value, but it will be
tiresome to list every conceivable InPoV individually so with my
SAIOM idea I try to define ALL intellectual patterns as S-O thinking
itself. (perhaps SAIOM should be renamed SOTAQI? (S-O thinking as
Q-intellect)). Can you imagine science without a more fundamental
subject-observing-objects notion, or philosophy without an individual
mind thinking about eternal truth?

Digressing even more...

On September 17, 1997, Bodvar wrote:

Principally the MOQ's static Intellectual 'dimension' has nothing to do
with smartness, intelligence or ability to think. There are calculating
prodigies who can come up with the most amazing results in seconds, so
their "thinking" is not the least affected even if they are intellectual
AND SOCIAL nitwits. Also, consider the immense neural calculation (organic
value/mind) taking place for us to be alive.

Early on...

... in TLS discussions there seemed to develop two seeming opposing sets of views concerning Pirsig's MOQ. Bodvar's SOLAQI seems to best represent one such view, in seeming opposition to quantum interpretations expounded by Doug Renselle, who went on to develop his own Quantonics web site and discussion group. This is significant but I mention it only in passing here and will not explore any quantum interpretations relating to SOLAQI until later in this paper when concept of "evil" is examined in greater detail. Along those lines, on Sept. 21, 1997, Bodvar Skutvik wrote-

I once said that seen from within, any level fills every nook of the
universe. Life regards everything as leading up to its creation, sustaining
or threatening it. So does Society. Everything dead (inorganic) or
alive (organic) are positive or negative social values. Values from below
are everything from minor nuisances to outright evil while the value of
the Intellect is transparent or invisible. Dirt (Inorganic value) at wrong
places diminishes my social status as a clean person. Burping at the table
- or worse sounds - (organic value) may destroy it completely. Life's more
powerful values, sex for instance must be directed into acceptable
channels, the "evil" greed or lust given some acceptable social form.

The same goes for the Intellect. Seen from its high ideas/rationality perch
every bit of the universe is high or low intellectual value. We do our
discussion from Intellect's premises, and my error was to try to decide how
Society looks upon this and that ...in an Intellectual way. Its impossible;
THE METAPHYSICS OF ... cannot be employed at other value levels other than the Intellect..only QUALITY can. Human beings - when focussed on the social - or lower - level are not Intellectual. When we start rationalizing why we like that and hate that we're back on the Intellectual level. This why it is so horribly important to get the distinction between the MOQ Intellect and the SOM "Mind" sorted out.

"There is intellect outside of language" you state. Hmmmm. Perception,
experience, yes. Even intelligence, but the (Quality) Intellect is
dependent upon symbolic language. It IS language in my opinion.

Along these lines...

... Anthony McWatt shares some of his private correspondence with Robert Pirsig:

Last night I found a phrase (which I meant to paste on
the LS before) where Pirsig mentions mind. It states:

"The word "mind" is freighted with all sorts of historic
philosophical disputation. Buddhists use it much
differently than Western idealists who use it much
differently than Western materialists. Like the term
"God", it`s best avoided. To prevent confusion, the MOQ
treats "mind" as the exact equivalent of "static
intellectual patterns" and avoids use of the term when
possible."
(letter to Anthony McWatt, January 2nd 1998) [Ant McWatt, April 2, 1998, email to TLS]

Another offering from Anthony's private files:

Pirsig wrote to me about space:

"I have thought about Bell`s theorem and what it might mean
for the MOQ and so far have concluded that this theorem is
just more of the same subject-object mess. "Local" and
"non-local" presume a physical space. Physical space is a
subjective intellectual pattern which is presumed to to
correspond to an objective inorganic pattern. These patterns are so entrenched they are some of the last to disappear during the enlightenment process, but before pure Dynamic Quality is understood they must go. The "nothingness" of Buddhism has nothing to do with the "nothingness" of physical space. That`s one of the advantages in calling it "Quality" instead of
"nothingness". It reduces the confusion".
(letter to Anthony McWatt, June 1st 1996) [March 30, 1998, Ant McWatt's email to TLS]

[The Mother of All Relativity]

For the LS in general:
It was after reading the "Subjects, Objects, Data...." paper. In an
assembly of SOM based people Pirsig obviously tried to cater to their views as far as he could, so -superficially seen - his came to resemble a SOM approach. It struck me that the search for the reality of Quantum world gives the impression that there (in an MOQ view too) is an objective
reality - although on a still more basic level. I had in my essay used the
map metaphor, i.e. that reality is the terrain a theory has to match or
"represent" to be credible (Pirsig had in a way also, by using the map
projection metaphor, I now realize that he has the better one). But then;
what is this experience/terrain that the MOQ/map is supposed to match
better than the SOM one? I went cold as I saw that I had introduced good
old objectivity through the back door, and pondered this heavily. The
relief came from the said Dr Harris (who I still hope will turn up here)
who mentioned the Lorenz transformation equations which are applied when going from Newton physics (NP) to General Relativity (GR). I am no expert, but I know that GR in a sense "contains" the NP; it is principally possible to calculate a moon trip based on GR but it is far too accurate; NP
suffices with wide margins. Still, when speeds are high enough, as in
particle accelerators, GR must be applied. But NP does not give room for
relativistic effects and the Lorenz equations are used when switching
between the two physics' mode.

However, relativity seen from the classic view has the same trouble as the
MOQ when addressed from a SOM standpoint. We all know the space distortion quandary; if space curves, what straight measuring rod do we compare to? Or if time dilates what absolute time does it fluctuate compared to? It is used as a layman's "disproof" of relativity but the physicists couldn't care less; GR works perfectly, they use the said transformation procedures and do not speculate about "real" space or time (I guess this goes for Quantum Physics too, it predicts the outcome with great accuracy, but cannot be understood from a classic p.o.v.).

It struck me that MOQ is a General Relativity of Metaphysics. History as we know it has been a relentless passage from absoluteness towards relativity. Euclid's absolute flat geometry has given way to a host of special geometries (ZMM on Bolyai and Lobachevski), and Ptolemaian cosmology has been replaced by the Copernican universe that ended absolute direction (up/down) and centre. Now the mother of all relativity is in the wings: There is no absolute reality, it "curves" due to the dynamism underlying it all. And the resistance and attempts to overlook it from the establishment recur with tenfold force. Was it Anders who said that the MOQ was an invention of Pirsig just as gravity was an invention of Newton?. That shows a deep understanding of what's at stake (and that he has read ZMM!).

Any new idea needs firm static latches to really catch hold. Quality is undefined and so how does one go about communicating that undefined Quality unambiguously? Only by means of contingency dependent upon objectivity. By dropping subject/object distinction Pirsig's MOQ drops objectivity as well, much as Niels Bohr's framework of complementarity. Classically, when objectivity is dropped, emphasis shifts automatically to subject and cries of solipsism and subjectivism arise. As Pirsig wrote, this is all part of enlightenment and expansion of knowledge. Last stronghold of die-hard objectivism. Impossible to overcome, unless language is specifically tailored in ways audiences can relate to. Here relativity comes into play, and perhaps if classical and relativitivistic theories can be united, so can MOQ and SOM.

So questions arise, such as does Bodvar's SOLAQI mean ability to think? Is this exclusively human domain? Or instead, is SOLAQI intended to be equated with Lorenz transformations? If so, is Quality intellect our ability to think? Bodvar leaves this Dynamic afterthought:

Footnote: The SOM phrase "ability to think" means in MOQ lingo: "the
ability to manipulate static intellectual values - language, mathematics
etc. This is no longer the subject/object ghostlike "abstractions in the
"mind", but as real as real comes ----- intellectually seen - and
resolves the nihilistic trap of SOM where it can be easily proved that there is no reality outside ourselves. Only humankind has entered the Intellectual level, but perhaps other primates are in the fringe zone.

Now let's make a quantum jump to July 27, 1998. Bodvar writes:

The SOTAQI says that subject-object thinking is the Q-Intellect: the
highest moral level (within the DQ ) while subject-object METAPHYSICS
(the claim to be all of reality) is deeply wrong! Translated into the
Newton-Einstein context it can be said that classical physics is the
necessary foundation for the "new physics" (Relativity, Quantum) and
still valid at "normal" conditions, but once (upon a time) it claimed
to be universal and that was all wrong. The same goes for geometry
where classical Euclid has become a subset within the general
geometry.

In my essay I spoke about the post-Copernican use of the up-down
adverbs, but did not really know how the subject-object terms could be
re-introduced in a relativistic sense, and advertised for a
"transformation" equation. Well, then Platt threw in the idea that
the MOQ itself was a possible next Q - development and it grew
into the - now - SOTAQI notion: subject-object thinking (or 'logic')
is the epitome of the Q-intellectual level. Suddenly every orphaned
piece of (my) puzzle fell into place, the S-O division is not an evil
to be shunned, but the highest good ....yet part of the big
Q-picture.

In order to attempt an answer to some of these questions it is necessary to proceed to intermediate moq_discuss archives, where Bodvar further develops his SOLAQI. That will be presented as another page and a link will be added here when it is complete.

What it means to me

I've had many discussions with Bodvar Skutvik (and others) and pondered much on his Subject/Object Logic as Quality-Intellect idea. Starting with everyday reality we construct agreements with our environment. Generally speaking, Western culture has come to be dominate in our everyday reality. Determinism is taken for granted. Introduced by ancient Greece, objectively seeing our environment as separate and isolated subjects has become our way of constructing reality. Normal everyday language is based on subject/object thinking. To communicate effectively with others this point must be conceded. Subject/object logic must be used for unambiguous communication to arise.

I believe SOLAQI is one of many potentially valid world-views offered by Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality. Hopefully I have helped to shed some little light on Bodvar's general outlook or at least upon my outlook on his SOLAQI and how it fits into Pirsig's MOQ.

Part I Conclusion

History might tell us this: subject/object thinking or logic seems to have emerged in ancient Greece, tenuously at first. Before Greece rose to prominence there were wandering, nomadic sophists who simply taught Quality. In some fashion these early sophists must have been connected with even earlier shamans, thus their link to Dynamic Quality or the Conceptual Unknown. In order for subject/object thinking, or logic, to become dominant, this earlier sophist outlook on reality had to be ridiculed and destroyed utterly. When Quality is restored to prominence as it is in Pirsig's MOQ, should that expanded knowledge force us to utterly destroy subject/object logic and call it "evil"? Or do we take it and use it as part of Pirsig's expanded understanding called MOQ? As all ideas seem to lead to common ground,

Thank you for reading, and of course, comments are always appreciated.
 
 

Part II

Part III

Perceptions of Quality