[MD] The SOL-ution

[skutvik at online.no]

On 11 Jan 2007 at 11:30, Ham Priday wrote:

> Greetings, Bo --

Hello Ham, looks like you appreciated my re-appearance. Thanks 
for that, but how you see the two of us "talking the same 
language" MOQ-wisely is more of a mystery. 

I had said to Laird:  
> > IMO no revision is needed. "SOM as just one mode of
> > intellect" is exactly what causes the mess. The 4th. level
> > isn't just "objectivity", subjectivity is its inextricable
> > counterpart.

> > Again: Intellect is the value of the subjective/objective DIVIDE!
 
> > Intellect is the VALUE of splitting existence into materialism
> > and idealism, matter and mind, and the many S/O derivatives.

You responded:
> If you weren't so determined to follow the MoQ canon, you and I would
> be talking the same language.  Subjectivity is indeed the inextricable
> counterpart of the S/O divide. 

Me determined to follow the MOQ canon?  I've been thinking a 
lot during my absence and here's the result (if you don't mind 
being the "guinea pig"? I use this from your Jan.13 post as my 
starting point:  
 
> It
> seems to me that Pirsig's cosmology is founded on Quality (DQ) as the
> primary essence.  How the individual differentiates this essence is the
> missing epistemology of the MoQ, and the author's failure to lay it out
> in systematic fashion has left much room for speculation.

First: SOL is not the Gordian Knot, rather the blow that cuts the 
intellectual level knot.  

Yes, Pirsig's cosmology is founded on Quality, but the 
dynamic/static divide is as much its foundation. Remember that 
Pirsg says (in LILA somewhere) that SOM is a quality 
metaphysics only S/O-divided. This is patently wrong, a Q-SOM 
is indistinguishable from the ordinary kind, it's the D/S divide that 
sets the two apart. In ZMM Pirsig has a revelation when reading 
about Poincarè, finding that his "harmony" matches his own 
"quality" perfectly (he also speaks of Einstein's "beauty" in the 
same way) so it seems that these concepts could have been used 
as essences  .... if only dynamic/static-divided!! Quality may 
however be the mother of them all good things so I'm not 
protesting it. Now, Pirsig makes it sound as if the D/S divide is 
arbitrary, but that's wrong, the said split is part and parcel of the 
Quality=Reality postulate. All demonstrations (that Pirsig offers) 
of this - the "Cutting edge of time" (ZMM) and the "Hot Stove" are 
also demonstrations of the dynamic/static divide. I would have 
liked to go into that but enough.  

You went on:
> The separation of subject from object
> creates Value -- the "stuff" of which Intellect (subjective
> cognizance) is made.  To exist is to realize Value.  It's why we're
> all here.

Well, the S/O separation creates or is STATIC INTELLECTUAL 
VALUE, but we are so immersed in this level that we can't see 
beyond its horizon - you still can't , but nor could I until meeting 
with Pirsig's ideas in ZMM. Yes, to exist is to realize value, but 
not only intellect's, rather the whole range of static values. When 
SENSING (hunger or pain) biological values are realized, when 
"Emoting" (hatred or compassion) social value ...etc. These just 
some obvious examples. 

> And why did you go into retreat??  I'M still here!

I don't have your ability to jump from one occupation to the other, 
my painting "career" suffered while being here the last time, and 
recovered somewhat when absent. Now I'm doing it again 
...phew!  

Bo.