[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[Ham Priday]

Andre --


> The confusion is not 'a direct result of Pirsig's level
>  metaphor' Ham, the confusion is Bodvar's misconstruction
> of the MOQ.

I am not concerned with Bo's "misconstruction of the MOQ".  I'm concerned 
that fundamental reality has been misinterpreted as an aesthetic essent that 
evolves in time by some cosmic law to form patterns of which you and I and 
our objective world are comprised.  Whether we call this conception SOM, 
MOQ, or "radical empiricism", it is not a metaphysical thesis, nor can 
ultimate reality be defined in empirical terms.

> And I cannot follow your reasoning; The 'levels metaphor'
> expresses different evolutionary phases of static patterns of 
> quality/value/experience. The levels are 'discrete' in the
> sense that they follow rules of their own but you cannot
> isolate them from one-another within the unifying frame of
> the MOQ which points to their unifying foundation... which is Quality.

The "levels" are arbitrary divisions of the physical world intellectualized 
by a human being.  As such, they are a euphemistic paradigm applied to a 
space/time (empirical) perspective of reality, in the same fashion as 
Parmenides' "Earth, Air, Fire, Water" paradigm of the elements was 
intellectualized in the 5th century B.C.  Imputing divisions to ultimate 
reality is metaphysically unjustified and logically unsound.  And equating a 
human affection such as Quality with reality is epistemically flawed.

[Ham, previously]:
> And we couldn't even realize Value if WE (its sensible agents)
> were not separated from it.

[Andre]:
> If WE as your so called 'sensible agents' were really 'separated from it' 
> we would NOT be able to realize it!
> Do you not understand the central theme of LILA?: 'Does Lila have 
> Quality?'
> Of course intellectually we 'divide' but the dividing must be
> understood within a MOQ context and not a SOM context.
> Dividing does not necessarily mean 'separating from'/ 'isolating 
> from'...the quality/value relations between them
> must not be lost sight of ... as they are in SOM but are
> re-established in the MOQ.

Value is our link or connection to reality.  It is the fabric or ground of 
our differentiated existence, not reality itself, which is undefinable. 
Whatever can be divided, experientially or intellectually, is only the 
appearance (to an observer) of something beyond finitude.  We humans can 
only sense the Value of that reality as an 'other'.  But because ultimate 
reality has no other, experience deceives us.  Our existence as finite, 
value-sensible beings is transcended by the absolute source of this value. 
Essence is the one and only true reality.

> You maintain the notion of individuals as isolated little
> lonely islands and continue to adhere to this to satisfy your
> political/economic convictions. The MOQ shows that this
> conviction is actually an immoral stance. It shows that you
> let your static social patterns of value dominate static
> intellectual patterns of quality.  And on this site you are not the only 
> contributor doing this.

Sorry to learn that my metaphysical position is immoral, but I can assure 
you that political/economic convictions have nothing to do with it.  Life is 
an individual experience, whatever one's politics happen to be.  And were 
not each of us isolated from the Essence of our being, we would not 
experience its value as relative otherness.

Essentially speaking,
Ham