[MD] A fine mess

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Bo [Andre mentioned] --

As the song goes, "There, you've said it again!"   When Andre asked "What do 
you understand by 'intellect'", you said:

> I understand it as THE VALUE OF THE
> SUBJECT/OBJECT DISTINCTION.

This has a certain ring of truth to it, as does its corollary principle, 
which you've previously stated as: "Intellect is the Value of the S/O 
divide."  It's what got me interested in your SOL thesis a couple of years 
ago.  This concept works as a metaphysical principle much better than the 
Quality hierarchy.  The problem I have with it is a semantic one.

The term "intellect", which is a carry-over from Pirsig's fourth level, is 
most commonly understood to mean "the capacity for rational or intelligent 
thought."  It seems that you are using it to mean "awareness" -- "the power 
of knowing", which is a less common understanding on the word.  If you could 
see your way to substituting the "knowing awareness" for the "thinking 
intellect", your statement would read:
AWARENESS is the Value of the Subject/Object division (duality or 
dichotomy).,

For whatever it's worth, I for one would fully support this principle.

As you know, I don't makes such concessions flippantly.  But the principle 
as stated above is so close to the epistemology of Essentialism, that I 
can't let it pass without endorsing it.  For me, the essential nature of man 
is his value-sensibility, and I maintain that this sensibility is rooted in 
the primary dichotomy (or split) between Sensibility and "Otherness".  The 
term "value-sensibility" may be redundant, since value is really the "sense 
of value".  Unrealized value is a logical absurdity, in the same way that 
awareness can not exist without being.  The cognizant human being represents 
a provisional coupling of two very different essents: subjective awareness 
and objective beingness.  And Value is what links them together in 
existence.

Your explanation (to Andre) further convinces me that we may have a common 
bond after all:

> This (in the form of "the ability to distinguish between  ...etc.)
> is the original definition of the term "intellect", but has come to
> mean "the ability to to think" and this makes it difficult to grasp
> [what] the 4th. level.  Pirsig himself has contributed to the
> confusion, in ZAMM the S/O split rightfully was called "intellect",
> but in the MOQ the said level is at times more like a mental,
> i.e. SOM's "mind".
>
> Intellect (the level) is a classification and "intellectual patterns"
> relate to the level like all other patterns to their respective levels.
> Inside outside? The MOQ is out of intellect so its classification
> process is valid at the MOQ too  ... like (the original social
> pattern) language was adapted by intellect and now used by
> the MOQ
>
> DQ/SQ is MOQ's first axiom and Pirsig puts intellect at the top
> of the static hierarchy so intellect being static is plain.  However
> the said "thinking intellect" is anything BUT static.

Absolutely true!  We're getting too much "static" thrown at us here.  The 
primary dichotomy creates Difference.  From there on, we have an infinitely 
differentiated universe in process.  The individuated subject (awareness) is 
differentiated, as is the experience of finitude.  In fact, not only is 
experiential existence a dynamic system, all the logic, laws and principles 
we attribute to it are relational.  Mathematics, equations, logic, identity, 
agency, description, analysis, and cause-and-effect apply only within the 
framework of a changing (dynamic) relational system.

> The real 4th. level however developed as described in ZAMM
> as the quest for what's TRUE that automatically spawned its
> counterpoint "just ...apparent, seeming, fleeing, transient".
> With Aristotle the true part had become "substance vs form"
> and here Pirsig says the modern scientific attitude was born.
> So you see the true/apparent (in moqspeak: objective/subjective)
> is 4th. level's master-pattern that has expanded beyond all
> imagination. It's difficult to see our present mind/matter dichotomy
> in the Greek search for eternal principles, but it's there.

I even agree with most of that, although I'm sure you will be chastised for 
supporting SOM!

Bo, now that I see how you define the primary division, I'm curious to know 
to what extent you accept the "self" as the knowing entity of existence.  Do 
you insist, as do most of the Pirsigians, that the individual is only a 
"collection of PoVs"?  Or do you regard the individual as a "legitimate" 
existent whose feelings, thoughts, and concepts are proprietary to the 
"knower"?

Thanks for this masterful analysis.  It has helped to clarify your 
perspective for me. I'll be interested to see how it goes down with Andre 
and the MoQers in general.

Essentially yours,
Ham