[MD] subject/object: no quality?

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Platt --

> Well said, Ham. One for my keeper file.

Thanks for the compliment, Platt.  Marsha doesn't dig my "primary source" 
concept, but she says she loves me, and that must count for something ;-)

I'm really using this opportunity to intrude in your extensive dialogue on 
"illusion" that has been going on all weekend in a related thread.  It's 
incredible how emotional human beings can get over the meaning of a simple 
word.  But, as usual, this debate actually isn't over the meaning of a word, 
but about using the word to persuade an antagonist that his reality 
perspective is warped.

Most people here think my reality perspective is warped, too, but at least 
it offers a sensible resolution of the illusion argument.  One reason is 
that Essentialism doesn't recognize patterns and levels as anything but 
"fudge factors" that tend to obscure philosophical understanding.  More 
importantly, my ontology is based on fundamental concepts of reality, not 
abstractions of empirical knowledge.  As you know, I maintain that there is 
an "ultimate reality" that is the source or essence of all experience. 
Ultimate reality cannot be defined in experiential terms for the simple 
reason that experience is relational and transitional, whereas Essence is 
undifferentiated and immutable.

You'll have to excuse my neglect of Quality (DQ/sq) in what follows, but I 
have never been able to understand these euphemisms as either fundamental to 
reality or reality itself.  For me the essence of a thing is more 
fundamental than the quality, substance, form, or history of a thing.  But 
that's because I'm an essentialist.

What we experience is "the appearance" of physical (i.e., substantive) 
reality.  This appearance is finite, dimensional, and constantly in motion. 
Metaphysically, it's a reduction of the primary source observed as an object 
of which we are the subjects.  As such (SA, Dan, David, Arlo, Pirsig, and 
Buddhism notwithstanding) existence is an illusion.  And since we are the 
subjective 'apprehenders' of existence, we are also an illusion.  Our 
awareness is illusionary, and so is our knowledge, our ideas, and our very 
selves.

Okay,  Now that you have the fundamentals, can you say that this appearance 
is REAL?

It is certainly real for you, inasmuch as it is the only reality you know 
and is the reality you participate in.
But, at the same time, it is "illusional" because it is only a fractional 
representation of Essence intellectually conceived.  In a real sense, 
EVERYTHING is illusional, not because it doesn't exist but because it is not 
Reality--at least not the Ultimate Reality.  Your answer, it would then 
seem, depends on whether you believe in an ultimate (i.e, metaphysical) 
reality or not.  If you don't, the conditional, evolutional system comprised 
of things, events, and selves must suffice as your reality.

Of course, if you're a Pirsigian you will be expected to call Quality your 
reality, whether you understand it as conditional or ultimate.

Have I resolved anything?

Best regards,
Ham