[MD] First split

[Ham Priday]

Magnus --

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

Yes, sorry for the typo.  My comment should read:
> 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).  However, Pirsig does not define 
> the primary source as Being, and neither do I.

Concerning my statement that "aesthetic value presupposes a sensible subject 
and therefore does not transcend the S/O divide," you replied:
> 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.

Magnus, my epistemological reasoning tells me that the value of an English 
essay requires a subject (the teacher) to judge it.  Canine sensitivity to 
drugs may be a trained ability that has practical value to the human 
inspectors; its only value to the dogs is the biscuits they receive as a 
reward for their findings.  I see no value implied by a ball dropping to the 
ground, unless you're telling me that gravity is a value, which (even if 
true) has no epistemological relevance.

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

To the extent that the MoQ uses terms in an unconventional way, the 
interpretations
are logically inconsistent and problematic for the author.

--Ham