[MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy.

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Bo --

Sadly you disappoint me.  I thought you had it all figured out, and that 
your SOL was the metaphysical explanation.

> I think your "agent" runs into ontological trouble
> if pursued to the said heights.
>
> I repeat. There are four basic forces: the strong and
> weak nuclear, the electro-magnetic and gravity.
> These make for the basic inorganic "interactions"
> (the famous GUT [grand unification theory] has the
> three first secured, but gravity refuses) I did not say
> that the levels are forces (Ham's will to NOT listen),
> but as the levels build on top of each other,
> inorganic is the deepest fundament of them all.

What you are summarizing is physical (objective) existence, not ultimate 
Reality.  I've maintained all along that this is the full scope of Pirsig's 
thesis.  His entire philosophy is a categorization of the evolutionary world 
by the processes observed in it.  Its four-level paradigm is an historical 
or anthropological scenario, and the only allusion to a transcendent source 
is an undefined esthetic attribute that allegedly pervades the physical 
universe.  How can a philosophy limited as it is to existential phenomena be 
advanced as a "Metaphysics of Quality"?

[Ham]:
> That fundamental source is what I call Essence.
> You may call it Dynamic Quality or Intellect,

[Bo]:
> Why this "intellect" you constantly ascribe some
> special role in (my) MOQ?

I assume intellect has a special role because you constantly single it out 
as "fundamental".   For example:

[Bo, on 2/17]:
> My definition of intellect (in case of language) is
> "the fundamental split between the concept and
> the reality conceptualized".

Now you say:
> I believe nothingness has the potentiality for everything.

Evidently you believe that something can come from nothing.  Tell me, Bo, is 
it more logical to ascribe potentiality to nothingness than to Absolute 
Essence? I'm amazed that someone with your intellect could come to that 
conclusion.

Please give it some consideration.

Kindest regards,
Ham