[MD] MOQ levels

[Ham Priday]

Hi Steven --

> I hope you don't mind if I put my 2 cents in.
>
> Biological patterns can't exist without inorganic patterns.
> The organism you are thinking of a collection of both
> types of patterns.

I appreciate your stepping in to clear my confusion, Steve.  But inasmuch as 
I am asking a basic question, can we dispense with "kinds" of patterns for 
the present, and deal with what any pattern of quality is theorized to be?

> It is intellect that takes undivided experience and creates
> the pattern called "organism," but this is not to say that there
> is not real experience prior to the inference of this pattern.
> The MOQ does not  even object to the idea that objects
> have an independent existence, it just points out that this is
> an idea, and like any other idea should be taken only so far
> as it is practical.

As a foundational theory, this seems a bit fuzzy to me.  If the intellect 
(and I presume we're talking here about the individual's intellect) creates 
the pattern from "undivided experience", this presumes that we can have 
undivided experience.  Perhaps this is a matter of semantics, but I define 
all experience as differentiated.  But, I'll go with your concept that the 
intellect (as subject) experiences something (as object) which it then 
intellectualizes, creates, or converts into a "pattern".  According to this 
epistemology, experience of the object is pre-intellectual and comes first. 
Is that correct?  If so, the pattern is created out of the experience, not 
the other way around, which means that the object is primary to its pattern. 
That raises the question: why is this not an S/O phenomenon?

Moreover, if everything experienced is a pattern, this presupposes an 
observing subject (experiencer?) and an object or pattern to be experienced. 
You'll probably argue that the observer is also a pattern.  So that, even if 
objects or their patterns exist, they cannot be made conscious (experienced) 
without a cognizant subject.  In other words, it would seem to me that the 
body of this subject would have to be primary to its awareness, whether it 
is a pattern or not.  That's why, for me, the primary division is between 
sensible awareness (consciousness) and the perceived "being" of its object.

My epistemology is that the primary source of existence (I call it Essence, 
Pirsig calls it DQ) creates a dichotomy in which sensibility is divided from 
the source.  This allows for the awareness of an "other", i.e., 
subject/object experience, as beingness.  What holds this dichotomy together 
is the Value of the undivided source.  In actualized existence, the 
"negative"  (creative) force that divides the subject from its object is 
counterbalanced by an "affirmative" force (Value) which draws the value 
agent (individuated selfness) back into its primary source (Essence.)   This 
makes each individual the autonomous agent of existence, or what Baxter and 
others have described as the "Choicemaker" of the universe.

This is only my hypothesis, not a science or a dogma, and I don't expect any 
MOQist to endorse it.  However, I do think it offers a plausible basis for 
morality and purpose in existence, which Mr. Pirsig's patterned levels 
hierarchy hints at but never really develops.  At the same time, despite the 
metaphysical differences, I don't view my hypothesis as "in conflict" with 
the MOQ.  Any comments?

Regards,
Ham