[MD] extricating MOQ from SOM

[Jaclyn Engele]

> [Case]
> I thought Pirsig's said that the problem arrises from regarding SOM as THE
> fundamental metaphysical distinction...

I am conscious of that and yet at the same time I see things slightly 
different.  The problem I see is that the people who make this mistake are 
the ones who objectify to a fault. They  view quality(reality) as residing 
in either subject or object.   This is the story we're all familiar with. 
However, those who are predominantly subjective in their outlook (for 
example: my wife, artists, the professional classical musicians that I have 
to deal with in my line of work every day) don't make the same mistake.  If 
they subjectify the world to a fault they end up making a different mistake 
but through it all they somehow still recognize quality as supreme.   The 
mistake they make is that they refuse to analyze and learn(paralysis by 
analysis is a term I hear at work all the time).  This is why talking to 
them about a Metaphysics of Quality goes in one ear and out the other.  It's 
just not a problem they can relate to.  You see what I'm saying?

Through my observations I have come to wonder if, in practical terms, 
finding the right 'balance' between S&O in one's life is compatible in 
concept with the MoQ.  Finding harmony.   "Quality(reality) ...is the event 
at which the subject becomes aware of the object"ZMM pg.215

I also wonder if S&O are tools to use to gain access to 
reality/truth/quality.  If, in doing that, I am recognizing the superior 
positioning of reality/truth/quality to a subordinate S&O, then I think that 
is compatible with MoQ.  That is very pragmatic.  That is something I can 
use in everyday life.  I think the subjective people might just find that 
useful as well.


Jim Engele