[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[X Acto]

primary to existence, thereby rejecting the individual subject without whose 
realization there would be no value."

> I maintain that we Pirsigians can validate our statement via experience.
> If we deprive our biological values the self dissolves into
> unconsciousness and perhaps annihilation, deprived of the value of oxygen.
Ham:
Biology isn't a "value".  It's a category of natural process that we've intellectualized as the science of life forms.  Oxygen, like carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen, are elements needed to support organic life.  But physical elements do not constitute or create  conscious awareness. Consciousness (i.e., "selfness") is not a physical entity.  This is the crux of our discrepancy.

Ron:
Consciouness is not merely composed of physical value there is also social and intellectual value. All these values create "self".
Now conceptualizing "self" as "entity" is in fact an abstraction. I agree. The crux of our discrepancy lies in practical meaning.
I may test the practicle "truth" of my abstractions, while you may not.
You recognize physical value as an illusion of rational process. While 
this is partially true, ignoring physical value as a pre-condition
for value awareness is divorcing expereince from meaning. 

> This is simply one of many examples which rest upon the
> concept that there is a value requirement for the self to exist
> and function normally.
> I think what you might be expressing is the neo-platonic ideal
> of the soul and how it relates and returns to the Paremidean "One".
Ham:
"Soul" is a classical term that has been defined in many ways -- for example, as the "spiritual part of man that is redeemed by his Creator" or, as Aristotle posited it, "the vital principle or nature of an organic body". Because of this ambiguity, I prefer the term "psyche" to designate the knowing, value-sensible self.

> Now if you argue that "value" and oxygen are simply metaphors
> for the process of being aware then that self-same logic may
> apply to your own theories making this merely an exercise in the
> art of pursuasion of belief.
> But the pragmatic truth remains in experience, deprivation of
> certain values will cause oneself to dissolve.
Ham:
Experiential awareness is a contingency of being, but the psychic locus of awareness is not a being, and "oxygen" has nothing to do with it.  The power or capacity "to know" does not evolve from nature or the material world.  It is derived from the primary dichotomy "Sensibility/Otherness" which actualizes proprietary "being-aware".  It is this subjective entity whose experience constructs the relational world of "appearances" -- objects and events evolving in space/time.

Ron:
Ah! so It is your own contention that if the physical body dissolves the "being-aware" still exists. With this being-aware an expression
of the multiplicity of the immutable "one". ala Parmenides.

Ham:
What you've interpreted from "Pirsig says" is commendible.  But your subsequent  comments have you thinking like an objectivist, which is contrary to my philosophy.
It also lacks the clarity of your previous discussions on the use of logic.

Ron:
Interesting, how you view my words as objectivist. However I find some contrarity in the fact
that you undercut the very logic you use as a validity to your concepts. In fact if you follow your
arguement you invalidate your own thesis. Leaving one to only guess at how one comes to the validity
of the statements you make. There seems to be no applicable test of worth.

 
Nice to converse with you also Ham.




Greetings, Ham



> I derived that statement in opposition to yours which, I quote:

"The mistake of Pirsig and his interpretors is to posit Value (Quality) as