[MD] The SOL-ution

[skutvik at online.no]

On 15 Jan 2007 at 3:18, Ham Priday wrote:
 
> 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).


Hi Ham
Yes, the physical world and metaphysical reality are indeed 
woven from the same cloth. Very well put, even if I would have 
dropped "physical" because physical/mental is intellect spinning 
its endless S/O yarn.  

By "D/S" I mean dynamic/static. I can't see the difference 
between your primary source and Pirsig's. Yes, Quality needs an 
object (or better a subject). This is the very fallacy: Phaedrus 
(ZMM) snapped out of the subject/object hypnosis and postulated 
that intellect creates it, but then Pirsig abandoned this insight with 
his impossible intellectual level.        

>  So,
> while I can accept Subject/Object as the dichotomy of my valuistic
> world, I cannot accept value as the absolute reality.

If you insist on the subject/object dichotomy as fundamental you 
are at least honest, more than those who constantly yelps about 
Quality, but are staunch SOM-ists. But again Quality=Reality or 
Essence=Reality, what does that matter? Why not just call it 
Reality? It's the dynamic/static divide that counts.  

I don't know how you go on from the Essence=Reality postulate, 
but it sounds as if it is S/O-divided. Now, please follow my 
reasoning: A "subjectiv/objective essence" metaphysics is 
indistinguishable from SOM, as is a "dynamic/static essence" 
from the MOQ. The fallacy of an Essence or a Quality that can 
be arbitrary split stems from diagrams beginning with the 
motorcycle (ZMM p. 93) divided into "components/functions". 
Here the MC obviously stands there unscathed, but no Reality 
remains after the initial cut.    

> I gather you are stepping where Pirsig feared to tread by positing Q
> as metaphysical reality, which would correspond to my Essence.  

Yes and yes again, however I claim that Phaedrus of ZMM was 
the pioneer here.

> 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.

As said Essence=Reality is perfect with me. I may even agree 
with you about "Quality an S/O appraisal" because Pirsig 
abandoned Phaedrus' insight and made Quality a mere S/O 
subset. 

> 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.

I don't think you understand: If you divide Essence S/O-ishly it's 
good old SOM and nothing is gained while an Essence - or if you 
insist on turning it upside down  - STATIC ESSENCE 
differentiated into the known DYNAMIC levels it will make for a 
perfect metaphysics.
 
> 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? 

"A biological organism is necessary to feel emotion". Yes that's 
the very level idea, the upper dependent on the lower. No 
disagreement at all.

>  Hunger, pain, love, and hate are
> psychosomatic sensations differentiated by the brain and nervous
> system. 

An organism without any nerve center or nerves at all must still 
senses something resembling hunger to seek nourishment? And 
a worm squirms when put on a hook because this is an 
unpleasant sensation?  

> 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.

Awareness a S/O (intellect) phenomenon, you bet, but not in your 
arch-somish sense. And the level hierarchy works perfectly, 
whatever SOM-generated problem I direct it at dissolves. But one 
must come over the "awareness" myth - that we wake up to a 
God's Eye view when we emerge from sleep. All creatures sleep 
so when a - say - frog wakes up it must be to a reality different 
from OBLIVION. There are only the various quality levels or 
awareness levels. A metaphysics of awareness would work just 
as well.   

IMO

Bo