[MD] The SOL-ution

[Ham Priday]

Hi 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. ..

Guinea pig, responding:
If Quality is the primary source -- remember, Pirsig only posited it as the
"primary EMPIRICAL reality" -- then the physical world and metaphysical
reality are woven from the same cloth, so to speak.  I don't know what you
mean by the "D/S divide" -- Dynamic vs. Subject?  DQ vs. Subjective?   My
philosophy is founded on a  primary source which I call Essence.  Quality
(value) needs an object.  It doesn't enter the picture until awareness is
divided from Essence to perceive it as objective otherness
(pre-intellectually sensed as Value).  So, while I can accept Subject/Object
as the dichotomy of my valuistic world, I cannot accept value as the
absolute reality.

I gather you are stepping where Pirsig feared to tread by positing Q as
metaphysical reality, which would correspond to my Essence.  Okay, I can
live with that concept, despite the common understanding of "quality" as an
S/O appraisal.  For me, Essence is a much more appropriate term for the
primary source because it suggests "necessary" without presupposing a
subject.

> 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 can forget about Static and Dynamic, as far as I'm concerned.  These
labels only further confuse the issue.  For me, "dynamic" applies to the
evolutionary, differentiated world of things in flux, whereas "static"
applies only to the immutable source.

> 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.

The value range is the limit of human sensibility; it makes no sense to
extend that range because there is no value without sensibility.  Why
distinguish biological from emotional, since a biological organism is
necessary to feel emotion?   Hunger, pain, love, and hate are psychosomatic
sensations differentiated by the brain and nervous system.  Awareness is an
S/O phenomenon that is inextricably linked to a sentient organism.  I still
think the MoQ quality heirarchy is an impediment to your thesis.

Ham, previously:
> And why did you go into retreat??  I'M still here!

Bo:
> 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!

Looks like you'll either have to decide which to concentrate on, or
alternate back and forth.  It's easy for me -- I'm retired, so I can make
philosophy my primary avocation.  (Of course, the housework suffers ;-)

It's always illuminating to talk to you, Bo, whenever you "appear".

-- Ham