[MD] subject / object logic

[Ham Priday]

Hi Ron --


> I've been emersing myself in Bodvar's work on the SOL concept and
> I have to say I'm with him. I believe as well as Ham, that how reality
> is percieved is through Subject object perception. To percieve and
> understand any part of reality is to percieve it as subject and object.

Undoubtedly, Bodvar's SOL (and its myriad acronyms) has impacted the 
Metaphysics of Quality.  But I think your statement above crystalizes an 
argument that gets lost in Bo's attempt to "reassemble the MoQ levels".  For 
me, the single Bodvar assertion that stands out above all the others in its 
philosophical relevance is this one:

> "Intellectual quality"... ought to be the VALUE of the S/O divide.

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.  I think this is true, whether we regard 
proprietary awareness as a biological or psychic function.  The metaphysical 
problem, insofar as the MoQ is concerned, is that Value is relational, which 
means that it is sensible only within an SOM system.  And since Pirsig has 
really not extended Value or Quality to a "higher sensiblity" beyond the 
relational universe, there has been no need to confront the issue of 
transcendency.  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.

Had Mr. Prisg attributed the SO division to a Creator, Ultimate Source, or 
Prime Mover, I would be much more inclined to view his thesis as creditable. 
Conceivably this could still be done.  Value (or Quality) could then be 
defined as the divided (SO) perspective of an "essential Oneness".  This 
would also imply purposeful "intent" on the part of the Creator, rather than 
a teleology of "betterness" based on insentient objects valuing Quality.  As 
it now stands, the MoQ has become a punching bag for debators seeking to 
parse levels and patterns ad infinitum.

I appreciate the sincereity of your position, Ron, and I agree with you that 
Bo's ideas should be taken seriously.  Unfortunately, having arrived here 
from a fundamentally different perspective, I don't speak the same language 
and can't help you in sorting out the MoQ problems.  (I couldn't rise to the 
task when Bo was an active participant, either.)  But I thank you for 
mentioning me and wish you the best in separating what is ":static" from 
what is "dynamic" in Pirsig's world.

Regards,
Ham