[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[Ham Priday]

Platt --

> I need not remind you that reality goes far beyond the physical that
> science monopolizes. But when it comes to the source of physical things
> science only offers such impoverished explanations such as "emergent,"
> "spontaneous" and "chance."  In other words, "Oops."

Yes, I believe Reality transcends the physical world, but I'm not at all 
convinced that Pirsig or the MoQists do.  Their focus seems to be entirely 
on the experiential world -- including "quality" which is itself an 
experience.  And, yes, Science does not know everything, but "emergent", 
"spontaneous", and "chance" are not weasel words. They accurately reflect 
the scientist's best theory or hypothesis based on the empirical evidence to 
date.  That's not "Oops", Platt; it's being honest.  No true scientist 
claims to have the magic key to ultimate truth.

[Ham, previously]:
> What is "absolute" about everyday experience?
> Quality? Truth?  Morality?

[Platt]:
> Quality, morality and reality are all words having the same
> meaning in the MOQ. "Truth" is a high quality intellectual pattern.

Quality, in common parlance, is a degree of excellence which presupposes a 
subjective (or moral) judgment.  Morality is judged by compliance to a given 
set of rules established for human conduct.  In other words, it is 
relational and not absolute.  Also, my dictionary defines Truth as "the 
property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality."  If 
Truth isn't Reality, aren't we deceiving ourselves?

> Quality (Value) comes prior to any division or any hierarchy
> and is "realized" every waking moment. But, as long as thinking
> requires patterns for meaning, it requires divisions, hierarchies
> and other intellectual structures. Pirsig has given us the division
> of DQ/SQ and the value levels to make reality more intellectually
> meaningful than ever before.

Thanks be to Pirsig for granting us this division!...although he seems to 
have reversed the labels on us.  Everything that he calls a "pattern" turns 
out to be emergent and transitional, while the indefinable primary Quality 
(Value) is only assumed to be "dynamic" to balance off his paradigm.  For 
me, it has made Reality more intellectually confusing.

[Ham]:
> Clearly, Pirsig's four levels are intended to represent
> existential reality.

[Platt]:
> What's the difference between "existential" reality and
> "experiential" reality? Since I don't know I can't comment.

They're the same: Existence is experiential reality, otherwise known to you 
folks as SOM.  My point was that this is as far as Pirsig's "metaphysics" 
takes him.  He alludes to something transcendent ("pervades") which he calls 
DQ but does not define.  This must be his ultimate Reality, yet he does not 
refer to DQ as the primary source, creator, or progenitor of experiential 
existence.  It's "outside the box" of his reality paradigm.

> All levels are "value levels." The value of inorganic matter
> resides at the inorganic value level.
>
> "Evolution is Dynamic Quality at work." Dynamic Quality
> pervades all levels. For the MOQ explanation of evolution
> please refer to Chapter 11 of Lila.
>
> The world is a moral order, i.e., morality pervades the
> universe. Thus, morality is a value at all levels.
>
> Thought and language are intellectual patterns of value
> residing at the intellectual level.
>
[Answering my question as to where the knowing self is represented]:
> In pure direct experience prior to thoughts about
> representing knowing selves.

[Platt, earlier]:
> In my book, Pirsig's metaphysical structure provides
> greater meaning and understanding than your structure.
> But, your binding of value and experience together holds
> out hope that you will be enlightened. :-)

In my book, there is no such thing as "pure experience".  All experience is 
objective and relational.  There is pure Sensibility, however, and it's the 
"knower" half of the Sensibility/Otherness dichotomy.  We don't "experience" 
our subjectivity: we ARE subjects.  Value-sensibility is our psychic nature. 
Experiential reality is actualized from it.  We are here to realize Value in 
the process of becoming.

> Take away your subject-object premise and what remains
> is the MOQ premise: the world is a moral order. But the
> MOQ doesn't reject the S/O premise. It's included in the
> broader MOQ worldview.
>
> Hope you find these brief answers responsive, Ham.
> If I've misinterpreted the MOQ I'm sure corrections will
> be forthcoming. Of course nothing can substitute for the
> MOQ as written by Pirsig in "Lila."

What can I say that will have any impact on you?  Your answers are 
"responsive" to the extent that they parody the ideas of a 
philosopher-novelist to whom you are beholden.  I know philosophy is not 
your specialty, but had hoped for some ideas or a slant of your own. 
(Henceforth I shall be tempted to think of you as Platt Beholden ;-).

Anyway, I do appreciate the response, Platt.

Best regards,
Ham