[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[Ham Priday]

Bodvar, Andre, Krimel, Absolutely All -- 

[Bodvar to Krimel, June 5]:
> This leads to the false impression that there remains an
> unscathed Quality atop the DQ/SQ dichotomy,
> and made the latter-day Pirsig (in the Summary of 2005)
> say that the MOQ is the "static" part of a still greater
> Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics. This is horribly wrong
> IT IS QUALITY WHICH IS DIVIDED!

[Andre replies]:
> The 'false impression' is entirely yours Bodvar.
> Quality remains 'unscathed' because it cannot be scathed.
> Static patterns of value are abstracted from the (Quality)
> stimulus... . DQ, as used in LILA in this instance ...
> as a static intellectual reference to Quality! All concepts
> need to be kept out of Quality. ..
> Quality CANNOT BE DIVIDED!

Here is another example of a fundamental concept being misconstrued. 
Ironically, the confusion is a direct result of Pirsig's levels metaphor.

It should be obvious that Quality (Value) is ALWAYS DIVIDED because it is 
relative.  We couldn't measure or define quality if we didn't divide it or 
relate it to someting else.  And we couldn't even realize Value if WE (as 
the sensible agents) were not separated from it.

In our frenzy to "overcome" duality and equivocate differences, we lose 
sight of the fact that we live in a differentiated universe.
This individuated experience isn't just an accident.  Differentiation serves 
a cosmic purpose: it allows Value to be realized finitely and comparatively 
in relation to all otherness.

Krimel expressed this idea quite well on 6/2 when he said:

> Forming concepts or dividing the indivisible is just what
> we do. To not do so is to be paralyzed. One does not
> derive greater meaning from abandoning conception.
> One merely achieves a conception of no conception
> or a particular state of insight.  ...To act in the world
>  requires a set of concepts.  What we argue about is
> always the Value of one set of concepts as opposed to
> another.

Consider the alternative.  If we and our objective world were not divided --  
if everything were one "aggregated mass" -- where would we find order, 
beauty, love, excellence, morality, joy, challenge, or inspiration?  Indeed, 
there would be no values, let alone an intellect to comprehend them.

Am I wrong, or has the author of the MoQ missed something essential in his 
effort to reduce reality to a quality hierarchy?

Essentially concerned,
Ham