[MD] subject / object logic

[Platt Holden]

Hi Ham, 

I think you may have some mistaken ideas about the MOQ. 

[Ham}
> Since "Intellectual quality" is just a Pirsigian metaphor for conscious
> perception, what this suggests to me is that the Value of the S/O divide is
> the source of experience.

"Conscious perception" in the MOQ is pure, direct awareness prior to
intellection of any kind. So it isn't "intellectual quality." It is simply 
Quality. "Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to 
intellectual abstractions." (Lila, 5)

[Ham]
>  In other words, Pirsig's "primary
> source" remains the object of proprietary awareness, which is to say that
> the primary source is still a subject/object dualism.  I find this
> metaphysically unacceptable.

Pirsig's "primary source" cannot be an object since the MOQ's perspective  
views the subject-object division as a necessary illusion created by 
intellect. "Quality, on which there is complete agreement, is a universal 
source of things." (Lila, 6) Note the absence of any division.

In his post to Ron, Dan Glover got it right: "Once a person realizes there 
are no subjects and objects then there is only Dynamic awareness of static 
quality patterns of value." 

I'm afraid you still believe the subject-object division is primary 
reality and that pure experience is "relational" rather than indivisible. 
I'm reminded this quote from William James:

"Pure experience' is the name I gave to the immediate flux of life which 
furnishes the material to our later reflection with its conceptual 
categories." 

In other words, subjects, objects, relationships and other intellectual  
categories used in any metaphysic are subsidiary reflections of primary 
reality, i.e. Quality.  

But, I could be wrong.

Regards,
Platt