[MD] Trance state

[craigerb at comcast.net]

{Ham}
> intellectual concepts are encompassed by the social level.

Rather, intellectual concepts are at the intellectual level.

[Ham]
> Where does [Pirsig] say or imply that DQ and SQ 
> each constitute half of reality?

Pirsig doesn’t specify proportions, but the view in both “Lila”
& SODV is that reality is DQ + SQ.

[Ham on Bodvar]
> “LILA” changes Pirsig's original SODV paradigm

The correct chronology is ZMM (1974), “Lila” (1991) & SODV (1995).
“Lila” could have changed ZMM but not SODV. 

[Ham]
> Pirsig didn't really resolve subject/object duality. In his SODV 
> presentation paper he labeled Intellectual & Social levels "subjective 
> static patterns" and Organic & Inorganic levels "objective static patterns." 

It seems you are assuming that the Subject/Object distinction is the same as
the Subjective/Objective one.  But isn’t the law, for instance, subjective but not a
subject?

[Ham]
> human beings as biological patterns of a socio-intellectual level.

There are, of course, no biological patterns at the social or intellectual level, each
level being discrete.

[Ham]
> If we lived in a moral universe, there would be no need for value preferences or 
> morality systems, and life would be meaningless. 

This argument is invalid without supplying some missing premises.
Craig