[MD] Essentials for target practice

[Ham Priday]

Hi Joe --


Appreciate your response.  However, you seem to think that the only issues 
I'm addressing are subject/object duality and evolution, despite the fact 
that I did not use either of those terms in the 12 tenets presented.


> A metaphysics is a system of logic.  Pirsig has a new insight into logic.
>
> SOM suggested that logic had to include an acceptance of a division
> in existence between subjective existence and objective existence. This is 
> very clumsy as subjective existence is unverifable by an outside party and 
> any decision following a dialog between people wishing to communicate is 
> guesswork.  In the logic of mathematics there is no S only O.

I don't think Pirig's Quality thesis is a "new insight into logic", or that 
logic can be altered by what amounts to poetic license.  That Pirsig 
regarded  S/O duality as "clumsy" doesn't justify its dismissal.  That fact 
that a subject cannot be objectively verified or numerically quantified are 
illogical reasons for rejecting subjectivity.  The empirical evidence simply 
indicates that selfness is not objective.

> In mathematics, evolution is denied unless you accept a dual basis for 
> logic: DQ/SQ. When 1 is defined logic is impeccable. When 1 is undefned, 
> logic looks to evolution for indefineable
> individuation.  Mathematics is simply another tool.

Mathematics is a tool for analyzing a relational system (existential 
reality).  It has no
utility in defining metaphysical reality.

> DQ/SQ, Persig declares DQ is not unverifiable by another,
> it is simply undefined.  Sameness in experience on a mataphysical
> level is a common thread between people. The metaphysical argument does 
> not depend on guesswork about
> existence SOM, but rather a clarification of experience, MOQ.

How can experience be "clarified" if we don't know what its essence is?  Why 
isn't a multi-level paradigm of existence based on Quality anything other 
than "'guesswork" on the part of an auther?

> To verify an individuals' experience in MOQ, everyone has to
> go through the same process of clarifying what is undefined in their 
> experience.  Pirsig shifted the burden from verifying logic from a
> "he says she says" situation to an agreement about levels in existence,
> evolution

Logic is not based on "he says, she says" but on the empirical order of a 
relational system.  Agreeing on an arbitrary set of levels is "he says, they 
repeat", which is no more logical than a political rally.

> In your FUNDAMENTAL TENETS OF ESSENTIALISM
> you have to rely on logic for veracity with no rules extablished.  Opinion 
> rules.  Who can doubt your experience?

That's what I submitted, Joe -- my metaphysical tenets.  I'm asking for your 
opinion on each of them.  This is my approach to polling the MoQ community.

> My hope for logic follows DQ/SQ in evolution!

This is meaningless to me.  It sounds as if you believe logic will suddenly 
change and fulfill your hope.

(Next challenger, please.)

--Ham