[MD] The SOL-ution

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Bo --


> 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.
> [snip]
> If you insist on the subject/object dichotomy as
> fundamental you are at least honest, more than those
> who constantly yelp 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)

I follow your reasoning.  But you have forgotten our earlier discussions in
which I outlined my ontology to you.  The subject/object dichotomy is NOT
fundamental or "arbitrary"; it's secondary or "contingent".  Here is MY
reasoning:
Fundamental reality is uncreated Essence.  The division is a negation of
Essence which creates the appearance of being by a non-essence (awareness).
The S/O dichotomy is a "reductive", valuistic perspective of the primary
source which does not impugn its absolute integrity.  I base this hypothesis
on Cusan logic which states that the 'first principle' [Essence] can not be
other than any [created] other; which is to say, Essence is the 'not-other'.

All this talk about levels and patterns of Quality evades the logic of an
absolute, immutable source.  Quality (value) itself is a contingency of the
primary division: it is man's essential link to the Absolute Source.

> 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.

Ham, previously:
> 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.

Bo:
> 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.

Again, the appearance of being as an otherness does not divide fundamental
(essential) reality.  It is only a reduced perspective of that reality.  The
existence of contrariety is a fragmented perspective that does not impugn or
diminish the Absolute Source.

> 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.

The finite (human) perspective is hardly a "God's eye" view.  Sleep is a
good metaphor for our everyday experience: our dreams of objectivized
beingness are woven from our sense of Value.  Ultimately, we will "wake up"
to realize that we were (are) this Value eternally.

 (IMO)

-- Ham