[MD] Trance state

[Ham Priday]

Hi Andre (Platt and Joe mentioned) --


Forgive me for interceding here before Platt has a chance to reply, but I 
have to question some of your statements about Prsig's philosophy.  This is 
not meant as criticism, as I'm not a student of the MoQ, and it's been some 
time since I read LILA.  Perhaps, with Platt's help, we can reach a 
consensual interpretation of what you refer to as "this intellectually 
immune system called SOM."  (I also have an idea that I'd like to pass along 
to both of you.)

In your opening statement you refer (parenthetically) to "the S/O division, 
arising out of the social level became the intellectual level."  I assume 
that, since there is no individual level for Pirsig, intellectual concepts 
are encompassed by the social level.

You then said (to Platt):
> And the more I think about what Bodvar is trying to say, i.e saving
> DQ from the tentacles of SOM (which is the absolute essence of the
> MoQ), the more I think he is correct. ...
> The  DQ 'part' cannot be intellectualised about, it cannot be part of
> the intellectual level (the big container into the little one?  Ha!
> DQ gave rise to intellect!)

Where do you get the idea that SOM "is the absolute essence of the MoQ"?  If 
Pirsig considered anything absolute or primary enough to be called 
"essence", it is Quality (DQ).  And, as I understand his ontology, DQ 
doesn't participate in the SOM patterns.

> And, as Pirsig suggests DQ is 'half' of reality (in the Quality= DQ/SQ
> split).

Again, that's not my understanding.  Pirsig equates pure Quality with 
Reality, not the DQ/SQ split.  Where does he say or imply that DQ and SQ 
each constitute half of reality?

> To then say, as Pirsig does, that the MoQ is (just) an Intellectual 
> pattern
> of values ( In opposition to SOM because the SOM doesn't recognise
> values) is to reduce the MoQ to the SOM level because it cannot allow for
> DQ. In my simple reasoning: it only allows for the SQ... and the SQ has
> been raped by SOM!! IMHO.

If SOM doesn't recognize value, how does man recognize or experience it? 
Surely you're not suggesting that mankind was not aware of values before 
Pirsig introduced his Quality thesis.

Okay, let me bounce this off you and Platt.  It was triggered by Joe's 
comment that because the Self "inner you" cannot be defined it is 
"mystical".  I argued that the subjective self is no more mystical than the 
objective reality it experiences.  Now, I know I'm violating Pirsig's thesis 
by holding out for an S/O duality.
But, kindly bear with me.

If there is a primary Reality to account for this differentiated world, we 
have no reason to believe that this primary "essence" is itself 
differentiated, or that it is subject to the.space/time parameters of our 
finite experience.  We cannot define or describe such an absolute.  We only 
know that our existence is a self-sustained system of multifarious events in 
process.  From this empirical knowledge, scientists and most philosophers 
have concluded that there are two aspects of experiential reality: Being and 
Awareness.  That we are aware is self-evident.  Precisely what we are aware 
of is not so evident.  We only know that it exists, that it has being.  Are 
you with me so far?

Let's assume Pirsig is right that the primary reality (of existence) is 
Value.  Isn't it conceivable that Value is existentially divided into 
"value-awareness" and "value-beingness"?  If that is true, the psychic, 
"knowing" self of man is value-awareness, and the phenomena he experiences 
as objects and events are the "beingness" he constructs from this awareness. 
Furthermore, since all individuals are aware of the same value, the universe 
we construct (for ourselves) has a common, definable identity.  Finally, 
since everything in existence comes to an end -- including the self that 
observes them -- the primary division between value-awareness and 
value-beingness also ends, restoring the oneness of the Absolute Source 
which, as Eckhart and Cusanus surmised, "knows no differences and has no 
otherness".

Robert Pirsig notwithstanding, what do you think of this reality paradigm?

Thanks to you both,
--Ham