Let's get the blunders out of the way:

1) "I'm not a philosophy major."
Kiss of death. It's too late now, but you should have said you were and faked your way through. You would have fooled most of the people.
2) "I can't keep up with the level of discussion here".
Baloney. I thought you said you could read.
3) "Please humor my comments and questions just this once"
Don't be a pansy. Expect answers and when they are not given to your satisfaction, complain bitterly.
4) "I believe that I see the rough outlines of what Pirsig was trying to say, but I'm still befuddled."
The befuddlement is not yours. This deserves repeating. The befuddlement is not yours.
5) "So, I'll ask you to put up with my unsophisticated comments and questions".
With statements like this people here will immediately consign the pattern called Rudy to the social level or worse and you'll be prostrating before the likes of David Buchannan the rest of your days. Unless of course this appeals to you.
6) "Thanks in advance for your patience."
That Victorian graciousness crap sounds nice but it doesn't cut it here. See 3.
7) "I am from New Jersey".
Unless you can say with some authority that you live near Sandy Hook, which would be unbelievably cool, it's generally a good rule of thumb not to mention New Jersy, much less that you live there.
8) "We might be like deepwater fish".
Never mind. That's OK.
9) "I don't have an IQ even approaching Pirsig's level".
You should have said "While my IQ is commensurate with Pirsig's, ...". You could have EASILY faked your way with this whopper. Another opportunity lost...see 1.
10). "If you want to flame me with high-level philosophical constructs...".
Your dime-store attempt at reverse psychology will surely backfire with this bunch.
11) "Ken Wilbur ramblings".
It's not "ur", it's "er": Wilber. The rest is right.
12) "all I've got is a half-empty water pistol."
This is all getting very tiring and transparent. You are obviously smarter that you're letting on, everyone knows it, and they are shaking in their boots.
13) "Rudy O., from the Rigel school of reality".
Never, ever, ever say this. Trust me, I know.

Now on to your questions:

"I suppose that my biggest question is, where does all this bottom out?"
Beats me, but if we were like deepwater fish...

"Just how would you implement all of this?"
SPAM emails and Microsoft Messenger messages, for a start.

"How would you propose to teach the world to think in MOQ terms and abandon SOM?"
Follow Pirsig's lead and make fun of the SOM at every turn.

"Wouldn't you have to change the nature of education from kindegarten to grad school?"
Yes, particularly first grade. My son's first science unit is about how everything is made of matter.

"Wouldn't every textbook need to be translated and reprinted?"
Yes.

"Wouldn't our day-to-day language have to change?"
Yes.

"Wouldn't our governments and courts need to translate all of their laws and regulations and proclamations and decisions into MOQ language?"
Yes.

"Wouldn't every intellectual and analytical field, from psychology to biology to physics to history to law to theology to political science to medicine to engineering to architecture etc. have to change its modulus operandi?"
Yes, and their modus operandi, too.

"Wouldn't newspaper reporters have to learn MOQ-speak?"
Yes.

"Aren't we talking about something enormous here, something revolutionary, something that would cause tremendous disruptions while people get used to the new regime?"
It's worth it.

"How would it all be done?"
Infiltrate academia. Replace the academics. The general public will follow like lambs to the slaughter.

"Over how many years?"
Let's see, how long did it take the postmodernists?

"Where would it start?"
Anywhere but New Jersey or Iraq would be fine.

"Who would guide it?"
Dan Glover

"What would be the sanctions for non-cooperation?"
Leave that to Horse.

"How would you justify the costs and disruptions to the 99% of us who aren't saavy about metaphysics?"
You can't be serious. A child could understand the MOQ. This isn't rocket science.

"What are the benefits?"
Greater explanatory power.

"Would people generally become more enlightned?"
Yes.

"Would they change their behavior to become more cooperative and more concerned about long-term social consequences?"
Yes.

"How do we objectively determine what is "higher" in evolutionary terms?"
This is a complicated question and therefore will require more than a one or two word answer: we stick the two things in the level they belong, and then see which level is higher. It's like doing arithmetic or connecting dots.

"Is something developed later in time always better?"
Yes.

"Or is complexity the thing?"
Yes.

"Are the more complex things necessarily better?"
Yes.

Now that wasn't too bad, was it?

Glenn's Postmortem MOQ Page