[MD] Theism/epistemology

[Michael Poloukhine]

> MP: 
> "Experience" however requires an "experiencee" does it not? Else it is a 
> meaningless word.
> 
> Ron;
> Not necessarily, this is where you miss the mark. Experience composes
> existence, existence is interdependant on environment, the self is an illusion
> of the intersection of multiple interrelated phenomena of inorganic, organic
> cultural and intellectual patterns of value.
MP: Nonetheless, as you say "the self *is*" and as such *is* a pattern of value 
which can value having an experience over not having it. Pirsig specifically 
noted (in Lila, I believe) that "object" remains the same only is better referred to 
as (pardon any error in quoting, my Lila is in LA and I'm in CT)  "an inorganic 
static pattern of values" right? The way in which we understand it changes in 
MoQ, but the thing, whatever the hell it actually is, still *is.* So "experience" still 
requires something to have any meaning, no? Even if its a pattern of values 
valuing beingon the experienced side of a valuation, the experience still occurs 
to *something.*

I'm not trying to be contrarian here... I really don't see how an MoQ view of 
"object" in SOM changes the fact that this thing SOM calls "object" still *is* in 
some way, even if its not real in an SOM sense, and is nothing but an MoQ 
"organic/inorganic static pattern of values." It still *is* and still undergoes 
"experience."