[MD] subject / object logic

[Ham Priday]

Ron, Platt, SA [Ant mentioned] --

[Ron says]:
> I understand Pirsig as saying that immediate experience
> is non differentiated.  I tend to disagree.  I maintain to
> sense anything experientially it must be differentiated
> or else we would sense nothing at all.   A blank.

[Platt asks]:
> That's why to me the MOQ "viewpoint" took our
> everyday experience of everyday events... So I ask
> in all sincerity, what am I missing?  Is the MOQ based
> on some experience other than experience of
> everyday affairs?

[SA comments to Ron]:
> Distinction is static quality. Experience is sq and dq.
> Static quality is distinction.  dq is sq, thus, dq is
> distinct and nondistinct, but to make it more clear
> it is said sq is distinct and dq is nondistinct and
> quality is thus distinct and nondistinct.  What is
> quality then, thus being both distinct and nondistinct?
> That is forever the question.

Epistemic ally, all three of you are correct.  Ron is right in insisting 
that all experience is differentiated.  Platt is right that the MOQ 
viewpoint is based on everyday experience.  And SA is correct in arguing 
that Pirsig's Quality is both "distinct" (differentiated) and "nondistinct" 
(undifferentiated), which is also my complaint.

The problems start when the notion of "patterns" is introduced.  Then we 
have to ask: "Who or what does the patterning?"  Is it some level of Quality 
called Intellect, as Pirsig suggests?  Or, is it the brain of man?  I say 
it's the latter.  Either Quality is both differentiated and 
non-differentiated in essence (which is illogical), or we (as individuals) 
differentiate it in the process of experience.

Another problem occurs when we regard a pattern as "static".  Dividing all 
events up into years, months, and days is a way of "patterning" them.  But 
marking time by a calendar or making history a chronology in time does not 
make events "static".   History isn't static, mind isn't static, molecular 
motion isn't static.  Yet, they are all patternized constructs of man's 
intellect.

Even Ant, the arch exponent of the MoQ, (in the Karma thread) challenged me 
to name "any _thing_ (i.e. static pattern) _not_ subject to continual 
change, flux and impermanency."  Clearly, there is none.  All existence is 
in DYNAMIC flux.  Every pattern is constantly changing.  Then why, pray 
tell, does he insert "i.e., STATIC PATTERN" after "thing"?

On the other hand, if ultimate reality is non-differentiated, as in the 
Buddha's Oneness or the primary source, it is also non-relational and does 
not move.  To be semantically correct, one must concede that it is "static" 
(or, as I prefer to call it "immutable").

Confusion over these MoQ concepts will persist until the terminology is 
restructured to reflect common definitions.

Although I could be wrong, I don't think so.

Regards to all,
Ham