[MD] Trance state

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Bo (Craig mentioned) --

[Craig on Ham]:
> The correct chronology is ZMM (1974), "Lila" (1991) & SODV (1995).
> "Lila" could have changed ZMM but not SODV.

[Bodvar]:
> Craig is correct on the chronology, but the SOM "encasement" that
> Ham speaks about was first presented in LILA  (page 305 in Bantam
> Press' hardcover)

I stand corrected on the chronology (thanks, Craig).  Nevertheless, I have 
always felt that the SODV discussion with its diagram of levels is the most 
succinct and clearest explanation of the MoQ hierarchy.

[Ham, previously];
> 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."

[Bodvar]:
> About THIS I agree with Ham. The said encasement does not resolve
> or dissolve SOM's platypis. Had he (Pirsig) said that ... seen from
> SOM ... matter and living things are tangible, while social ranks and
> ideas are intangible it would have made some sense, but he actually
> says that the two lower levels BELONG to the material world and the
> two upper to the mental world as if these categories exist and the
> MOQ must fit them. Horrible!!

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

[Bodvar]:
> Ham is correct here too, but this requires a little clearing up. To say
> that reality IS something is meaningless, even more so is the assertion
> that it can be split and remain, and it's here things goes wrong. Pirsig
> says that SOM splits reality S/O while it postulates one subjective and
> one objective reality. Likewise the MOQ postulates one Dynamic
> reality and one Static reality the Quality lies in this classification and
> makes them DQ/SQ.
> [snip]
> Despite Ham's peculiar phrasing he is right. Humans is a biological
> species that - first - rose to the social level and then (necessarily
> because they were the sole social level "inhabitants") rose to the
> intellectual level. But NB! it wasn't biological "man" who rose to
> intellect but "social man".

Bo, you wield a lot of influence here, despite your controversy with 
Pirsig's thesis.  As a fellow renegade with an "alternate view", I'm allied 
with your cause.  Indeed, I'd like to cement that alliance.  But the problem 
I have with your anthropological man "rising to the intellectual level", 
thereby recognizing SOM which prevents him from understanding "Dynamic 
Reality", doesn't make sense to me.  Why do you insist that Intellect is 
some "brass ring" to be grabbed by an evolving species, rather than an 
inherent capability of the human being?  Was it not intellect (on man's 
part) that enabled him to theorize a value-centered reality?  I find it 
incredible that anyone can consider intellect an impediment to metaphysical 
understanding.

Call me a contrarion, but it seems to me that it's this 'levels hierarchy' 
foisted on us by Pirsig, not intellectuality or SOM, that has stultified our 
intuitive thought.  To put it very simply, there are two modes of reality: 
Absolute and Differentiated.  The Absolute is homogenous, immutable, and 
uncreated.  It has no "parts" or "otherness", and is the timeless source of 
all finite otherness.  The Differentiated mode of appearances is relational, 
transitory, and constantly evolving.  Its primary characteristic is its dual 
nature which is best defined as "awareness of other".  Whether we are 
intellectuals or ignoramuses, this is the S/O reality we all live in.

We are individuated 'beings-aware'.  We accept this as our existence because 
we have no other choice.  Subject/object reality is not a philosophy, and 
certainly not a metaphysics.  Its dynamics and principles are revealed to 
the scientists who investigate them, and are the basis of man's material 
progress in the world.  To posit or define any other reality is speculation 
or hypothesis, best left to the philosopher.  Dividing existence into 
levels, and assigning arbitrary labels to them, won't give us the magic to 
escape finitude or increase our wisdom.  Yet, we know intuitively that 
existence, differentiated space/time reality, presupposes a prior cause or 
ultimate reality.

This is where I start, Bo.  Where I see you starting is with Pirsig's 
four-level construct which everything must be made to fit.  Unfortunately, 
those proprietary attributes of man -- self-awareness, value-sensibility, 
intellection, conceptualization, desire, and morality -- must either be 
assigned to a designated "cosmic" level or excluded from your reality 
perspective.  And that, to me, is eliminating the subjective contingent of 
being-aware which makes existence what it is.

If I'm wrong in my assessment of your personal philosophy, I'd like to see 
how you defend it.

Sincerely,
Ham