[MD] The Quest for Quality

[Ham Priday]

 Hello Bo --

[Ham, previously]:
> I don't think Plato's idealism was founded on the idea that
> man "becomes 'mind'"; rather, it was that "things are ideas
> (essences)" perceived by man.

[Bo]:
> What emerged was the notion of existence as divided into
> one illusory component and one permanent ditto. With Plato
> it was "appearance/ideas", with Aristotle "form/substance".
> It really started much earlier with the search for eternal principles,
> but I can't repeat it all. At least Pirsig's idea is that's this initial
> split has grown through many phases to end up as a conviction
> that existence is split this way -from eternity till eternity (AKA
> SOM even the terms subject and object is more recent)
> The main thing is that such a split arrived with in Greece in the
> last millennium BC (in the Western world, but that's another discussion)
>
> As said the phases have varied. Plato's sounds as if ideas are
> the permanent part (objective) while it with Aristotle had turned
> 180 degrees and "substance" is the real thing: This is closer to
> present day mind/matter variety where mind is subjective and the
> physical world objective, hence Pirsig's remark in ZAMM "...
> with Aristotle the modern scientific attitude is born".

I don't see the necessity of reviewing history in a discussion of what you 
and I regard as fundamental metaphysics.  Whether or not Aristotle went off 
on a tangent of his own from Plato's idealism may be important in 
understanding philosophical development, but it only complicates what we are 
trying to establish here.

[Ham]:
 > To me the fundamental split (i.e., primary division) is between
> the absolute whole (Essence) and the experience of finitude
> (differentiated beingness).

[Bo]:
> Right, but the "Essence/Experience of finitude" division required
> a previous stage where DIVISION into a permanent and an
> illusory part came to be, namely the differentiated beingness that
> (according to Pirsig) arrived with the Greeks as SOM. Your
> Essence metaphysics is an exact match to the first Quality
> metaphysics in ZAMM: Essence or Quality spawning the
> differentiated (subject/object) beingness.

We ALL experience reality as subjects relating to objects.  The Greeks may 
have defined what Pirsig now calls SOM, but as far as I'm concerned humans 
have always perceived reality that way, so it needs no "metaphysics" to 
support it.  .

[Bo]:
> This sounds obvious, but Western acadmical philosophy
> knows no Existence or Reality prior to "differentiated
> beingness" (S/O)  It postulates a subjective existence and
> an objective existence, full stop!
> And - again - this arrived with the Greeks.
>
> And again, only from this division platform could a more
> fundamental division be worked out, meaning that the MOQ
> could only grow out of SOM as could your Essentialism.
> Your mistake is to think that humankind before the Greeks
> would have realized this had they just been as great thinkers
> as ourselves.

Had they been thinking intuitively, in metaphyical terms (rather than being 
influenced by gods and ideological "essences", I see no reason why their 
thought should have been less  "great" than ours.  Plato's Republic was a 
monumental step towards organizing the social structure, as was Aristotle's 
objective approach to scientific understanding.  I would not disparage the 
intellect of the Greek philosophers in systemizing human knowledge and 
understanding.

> Yes, Essence transcends finitude (differentiated beingness)
> in the same way as Quality transcends SOM - or its source
> as Pirsig's first proto moq had it. In the final MOQ however
> "differentiated beingness" is its intellectual level...at least as I see 
> it.

Again, you are making a cosmic level out of a uniquely human function.  This 
is where you and I are on different tracks.  I don't see Intellect as a kind 
of "Quality" floating around in the cosmos, waiting for man to "latch onto" 
it.  Essence is not intellect, intelligence, knowledge, or morality.  All of 
these attributes are man's understanding of his relation to otherness (i.e., 
experiential existence).  The primary, "eternal" source of being-aware is 
not the physical universe.  Sensible experience begins with the 
differentiation of otherness (being) from Essence.  It is the appearance of 
finitude (objective reality) as apprehended by a sensible subject. 
"Intelligent Design" is simply the logical order, or symmetry, which man 
applies to the universe in the process of interpreting his experience.  Take 
away cognitive awareness and there is no experience, universe, intellect, or 
quality.

> I understand you perfectly, but you seem unwilling to understand
> me, till now at least, perhaps this will be the turning point?

I am perfectly willing (and anxious) to understand you, Bo.  My problem is 
accepting the notion that Intellect is a superhuman quality.  Your cosmology 
would have us deify intellect, making it the Creator of the universe.  I 
could understand Love, Consciousness, Beingness, or even Value as the 
ultimate reality; but not Intellect.  For me, intellect is the 
psycho-neurological capacity of the cognizant subject to derive intelligence 
(relational knowledge) from value-sensibility.  It does not exist 
independently of man.

[Ham]:
> Thanks for your patience, Bo.

[Bo]:
> Likewise, this is a metaphysical discussion and in that
> respect you are true to its clauses.

Could you, then, elaborate on what it is about Intellect that convinces you 
of its primary status?  For example, what is intellect in an unrealized 
state?  Do you believe the universe itself to be intellectual?  Or, is 
Quality a "cognizant" essence?   I'd also appreciate it if you would explain 
your concept of intellect without resorting to "levels".

Thanks again, Bo.

Essentially yours,
Ham