[MD] Quality/MOQ dichotomy

[Michael Poloukhine]

> DS wrote:
> I see no reason to believe that Pirsig and Whitehead are pointing to
> anything different than Hobbes et al. They are all pointing to the feelings
> that come before words, feelings that are the meaning of words.

MP: David, I am on board with you about the relationship of Hobbes, Locke to 
RMP's MoQ.

But would note that RMP [MoQers, correct me if I'm wrong please] also 
ascribes Quality as relevant to non-biological value patterns. A rock is [albeit 
simply] a Quality driven static value pattern. 

How does a rock have a Hobbesian "experience" of Quality?

Hobbes approach remains within an SOM context and can only be so. This to 
me is the beauty of RMP's Quality; its like Hobbes on crack. While Hobbes' 
empiricism certainly relates to RMP's MoQ on the biological static value pattern 
level, it is meaningless to those lesser patterns which RMP's MoQ manages to 
incorporate in its reductive simplicity. Hobbes' is in that sense an entirely 
subjective understanding of reality, where RMP's translates the same approach 
into an objective frame of reference.

Every"thing" is related to Quality, cannot be what it is *but* for it. That goes way 
past Hobbes, Locke et al. but with complete consistency to the notions of such 
of philosophical predecessors. 

(IMO of course)

MP
----
"Don't believe everything you think."