[MD] The Quest for Quality

[Ham Priday]

Hi Bo [Ron mentioned] --

After I said that Aristotle is not to be faulted for launching the objective 
approach to knowledge (which some regard as "intellectual"), you fault me 
for doing the same thing ...

> Right, here is the crux where you are well-meaning but wrong.
> Science is the essence of the intellectual level, that of a human
> mind exploring a physical universe. Philosophy on the other
> hand believes itself to be above science, but is firmly based
> on the same S/O-intellectual outlook. This includes your own
> Essence, and Pirsig's Quality as essence with the MOQ a
> theoretical ordering.  The true MOQ is the DQ/SQ divide,
> this is the metaphysical equivalent to Newton's physical
> revolution.

"Essence of the intellectual level" is meaningless to me as a definition of 
Science.  If you mean that experiential knowledge is the goal of Science, I 
would agree.  Scientific methodology is the logical approach to 
understanding physical reality.  But physical reality is not the primary 
essence, and as I've said previously, objective knowledge is not wisdom 
(true insight), and Science is not Philosophy.

> This is what the Newton example in ZAMM says:
> A great new insight/revelation comes along and in a
> crystallizing process it transforms the future, present
> and PAST in its picture. That you (Ham) don't get this
> message, but go on thinking that intellect is the ordering
> mind is forgivable, but that the moqists around this site
> ignore it is a tragedy.

How does a "new insight come along" and where does it come from?
The MoQist would say that it comes from Quality, or is a pattern of DQ.
I believe that the value-sensibility which constructs the universe as a 
relational system also commands the intellect to realize its order and 
cogency as  "insight".  Neither the value that is sensed nor the awareness 
that senses it is an "existent".  All insight is proprietary to the 
individual observer.  And that includes the appearance of physical phenomena 
(i.e., experiential reality).

Now let me turn the tables and ask you a fundamental question:
Do you believe that this ordered universe, "the metaphysical equivalent to 
Newton's physical revolution", exists independently of its realization by 
the cognizant mind?  In other words, can a universe exist without sensible 
awareness?  That, I think, is the fundamental issue in this discussion.

> What Ron "understands" I don't know, but lets keep it fundamental.

Alas, I don't know what Ron really "believes", either.  However, it would be 
wrong to dismiss his respect for fundamental principles and their logical 
presentation, which is the bread and butter of philosophical dialectic.

Thanks, Bo.

Essentially yours,
Ham