[MD] First split

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Ham

Magnus:
>> Another way to express the DQ/SQ split is to say that
>> it's the difference between "being" and "becoming". If we compare this 
>> to SOM's first split (the S/O split),
>> it's actually rather self-evident that the DQ/SQ split is more
>> basic than S/O.
> 
> That depends on how you define "being".  If being is your primary 
> source, its experience as patterns is simply explained as a result of 
> the S/O split. This is the ontology of Pantheism which views everything 
> in the universe as a part of the Whole (Being).  Pirsig does define the 
> primary source as Being, however, and neither do I.

I guess you mean that Pirsig "doesn't", right?

Anyway, I just said that "being" is one half of the first split, i.e. it's *not* 
the primary source, just half of it.

>> The DQ/SQ split however, does. It's the difference between
>> what is and what may come to be. I can't think of any more
>> basic split.
> 
> That's fine, provided your concept of 'being' is not substance or 
> matter. For "what comes to be" (existence) is substantive and 
> differentiated, whereas "what is" is the undifferentiated potential for 
> being.

Of course. With 'being', I include stuff like gravity, dreams, the taste of 
bananas, even space and time.

> I applaud your attempt to "re-engineer" metaphysics into Pirsig's 
> euphemistic philosophy, Magnus, but I don't think you can do this with 
> Quality as the fundamental essence.  Aesthetic value presupposes a 
> sensible subject and therefore does not transcend the S/O divide.

Ham! I'm sure you've read this lots of times before, but I'll try to rephrase it 
especially for you.

Your view of the Quality event seems to be one human observing some object, and 
since that human is "sensible", it can place various aesthetic value on that 
observation.

However, and please Ham, this is very important and not something you can 
disprove with epistemological reasoning.

Quality, as used in the MoQ, does *not* require a "sensible" subject. Quality is 
involved when a teacher is valuing english essays, when dogs are detecting drugs 
on an airport, *and* when a ball is dropped and starts falling to the ground.

Pirsig is very clear on this in Lila:

"In the Metaphysics of Quality 'causation' is a meta­physical term that can be 
replaced by 'value.' To say that 'A causes B' or to say that 'B values 
precondition A' is to say the same thing. The difference is one of words only. 
Instead of saying 'A magnet causes iron filings to move toward it,' you can say 
'Iron filings value movement toward a magnet.'"


> Your analysis brings to the surface some logical problems in Pirsig's 
> thesis that need to be resolved.  And that's a significant first step in 
> my opinion.

The logical problems are not inherent in the MoQ. They only appear when using 
non-MoQ interpretations for MoQ terms.

	Magnus