[MD] The Quest for Quality

[Ham Priday]

Bo --

[Ham, previously]:
> 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.

[Bo]:
> I see your need for launching this to avoid being drawn into my
> reasoning, but wait.
>
> "Sensible experience" does NOT begin with "the differentiation of
> otherness (being) from Essence", it begins with "...the appearance of
> finitude (objective reality) as apprehended by a sensible subject"
> Again the latter is the necessary step for the former.

[Ham]:
> Take away cognitive awareness and there is no experience,
> universe, intellect, or quality.

[Bo]:
> Will Essence remain?

YES!  That's the whole point of having a transcendent source, which you and 
Pirsig apparently deny.
Pirsig says Quality is the ultimate reality.  Yous say it's Intellect.  But 
neither of these human sensibilities exists without the individual who DOES 
the qualifying and the intellectualizing.  Only Essence transcends 
finitiude - Man and Nature - and is independent of differential 
(experienced) reality.

> Look dear Ham, one point. "Man" (as consciousness) disappears
> in all systems unless it ends in absurdity, like above about "take away
> cognitive awareness..."  Thus the intellectual level is neither super or
> sub-human because there is no man with consciousness in the MOQ
> ... outside its static intellectual level that is, but this in return is 
> all about
> it.

I don't follow you.  "This [intellect?] in return is all about WHAT?

[Ham]:
> 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.

[Bo]:
> This assertion must stem from your discussing with other people.
> The MOQ says that the former SOM where "man" is the sole arbiter
> of reality is its 4th static level, thus if anything intellect "defamed".

Are you, or are you not, starting with Intellect?  This is my question to 
you, not the result of my discussing your theory with other people.  If 
Intellect is the Creator "where 'man' is the sole arbiter of reality", what 
is it where there is no man?  I cannot conceive of an intellect existing in 
the absence of a thinking agent, but maybe you can.  I asked you to 
elaborate.  What is your conception of it?

> Yes, I know, but if honest you will have to admit that Essence does not
> survive these premises. It's supposed to be prior to the cognizant
> subject or man. And you are right! Like Pirsig were in his first insight
> about Quality prior to the man/world dichotomy .

It seems that you are contradicting yourself here.  An uncreated absolute 
source has no beginning or ending by definition.  Therefore it must 
"survive" the "premises" of finitude.  As you say, Essence "is prior to the 
cognizant subject or man.  And you are right!"  Well, if I am right, why did 
you lead off by insisting that Essence does not survive??

When I asked you to describe what the intellect is in its unrealized state, 
you said:
> This is your intellect ("the psycho-neurological capacity of the
> cognizant subject")  MOQ's intellectual level is the VALUE of the
> distinction between your intellect and its world.  Meaning that this
> distinction is not basic, the DQ/SQ is. Intellect in an unrealized state 
> is
> the dynamic future.

The "dynamic future" is INTELLECT?  Was the dynamic past also Intellect? 
What about the dynamic present?  Bo, you and I live in a dynamic universe. 
It changes constantly: the planets circle in their orbits, trees grow tall 
from seedlings and are chopped up for lumber to build houses, living 
creatures evolve into new species, while every single one of them is born 
into this world, flourishes for a spell, and then dies.  If this is not 
"dynamic", I don't know what is.

If my intellect were not realized, I would not be able to use it for making 
sense of the world.  You say intellect as "a level" is VALUE - "the VALUE of 
the distinction between your intellect and its world."
To me, that's a backward definition.  Value is the DIFFERENCE between my 
sensible awareness and the world I experience.  Value is, in fact, what 
draws me as a subject to the objects of my reality. Value is derived from 
Essence in its differentiated (negational) mode.  I believe it is the "raw 
material" from which we intellectualize physical reality.  It seems to me 
that you are equating Value with Intellect, and I can't comnprehend such a 
cosmology.

> The universe is the inorganic QUALITY level, or vice versa.

Why only inorganic?  Does organic nature account for nothing in Pirsig's 
Quality thesis?  Is there no psychic component to Quality?   And what about 
energy fields, thermodynamics, and gravitation, all of which play a role in 
sustaining the universe?

[Ham]:
> I'd also appreciate it if you would explain your concept of intellect
> without resorting to "levels".

[Bo]:
> For the nth. time, intellect without resorting to levels is your 
> intellect,
> namely the cognizant subject that looks out on a world. Known as
> SOM!!

Now you seem to be suggesting that "my intellect" is primary to your levels! 
I'm confused.  When I "look out on a world," am I looking at Levels, 
Quality, or Intellect ...or all three?

> It's great fun to discuss with one who don't shy away
> from the fundamentals.

It may be fun for you, but I'm still far removed from your "fundamentals". 
Can you possibly explain this cosmology in your own terms in a fundamental 
way that I can grasp?  Otherwise, I'm afraid you've lost me.

Patiently yours,
Ham