[MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy.

[Platt Holden]

Hi Ham,

[Ham]
> Platt --
> I know you would rather discuss international politics, but I can't let
> this 
> go unchallenged.

I enjoy all our discussions, Ham, regardless of the subject.

[Platt] 
> > Until the subject (a pattern of values) symbolizes (with an
> intellectual
> > pattern of values) his realization (Dynamic Quality), the subject
> remains
> > mute. Thus, I can only speculate on what the subject "realizes." ...

[Ham] 
> You can only speculate on what your cat or another human being realizes.
> But there can be no doubt as to what you as your own subject realizes. 
> Are 
> we at least in agreement on this?  If not, how do you define
> "realization"?

"Realization" equals awareness equals experience. Yes, we agree that I'm 
aware of being aware -- if I stop to think (SOL) about it. I doubt if UTOE 
is similarly aware of being aware, however.  
 
[Platt]
> > [Pirsig] believes in what you call subjects, but he calls them patterns
> of 
> > value
> > consisting of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual patterns
> of
> > value. Remember: for Pirsig, the world is a moral order. Like he
> suggests,
> > when you see subjects and objects as interacting patterns of value, you
> > get
> > a whole different view of reality than seen through subject/object
> > spectacles.

[Ham] 
> Assuming your analysis of the MoQ's "subject" is correct, you have
> "patterns 
> of value" chasing after value.

Not chasing, interacting. 

> Whether the value being sought is "static"
> or "dynamic", something is wrong with this circular epistemology.  Simply
> speaking, a value (or pattern of values) has no need for value, hence no
> need (e.g,, desire or motivation) to interact with what it already is. 

"Need" is a value. The "interaction" is a value. Value "is."

> This 
> throws Michael's concept of the subject "seeking transcendence" flat on
> its 
> face.

How so? There are high values and low values. To some transcendence is a 
high value. 

> You haven't allowed for sensibility in this analysis.  I define the
> subject 
> as value-sensibility, the basis of proprietary awareness and the driving
> force of human action.  I can't see that either of these attributes is 
> accounted for in Pirsig's epistemology. 

Sensibility is sense-of-value. UTOE has it, a cockroach has it, an atom has 
it. 

> Perhaps you could explain how man
> as a collection of value patterns is subjectively motivated toward a
> greater 
> ("dynamic?") value.

Motivation towards higher value (betterness) is built into the universe, as 
represented in all creatures (value patterns) great and small. It's the 
answer to, "Why survive?"

>  Or do you, like Bo, regard Intellect (the power of 
> knowing or realizing) as something beyond subjectivity?

The "power of knowing or realizing" is plain old "experience." Intellect is 
based on the value of the subject/object division which in turn is the 
basis of reason, logic, science. Beyond intellect is the wordless 
understanding that experience and value are inseparable. 

Warm regards,
Platt