[MD] Wanted: A proper foundation

[Ham Priday]

Bo --

On Wednesday, 1/28 at 9:03 AM you wrote:

> Marsha and Ham

[Marsha, previously]:
> I agree with Bo that the levels are important and that the MOQ
> perspective is above the level hierarchy.  But I think a stronger
> impact can be made from understanding the nature of the patterns
> that inhabit the levels.  So here I agree with you.  Once the nature
> of the patterns is understood, the usefulness of the level structure
> becomes obvious.  I am concerned that the patterns are seen as
> independent (inherently existing) entities, just a new name for
> objects. This I think is the wrong view. RMP has stated that there
> are no thing-in-themselves in the MOQ, and he has mentioned Buddhism
> and emptiness, though he has not stated my interpretation directly.

[Bo]:
> Right, the DQ/SQ divide (instead of the S/O) and the static levels
> is what gives the MOQ its power. However yours about the nature
> of the levels and your concern if the pattern are to be seen as
> independent (inherently) existing entities I find a bit un-called for,
> this is taken care of by the first postulate (existence's ground no
> longer S/O but DQ/SQ).Thus all patterns are static quality and in
> the Q context they are independent and exists very much in
> themselves.

[Ham, previously]::
> So much of Pirsig's language is ambiguous that I sometimes suspect it
> gets in the way of our understanding.  You talk about the possibility
> of MoQ having a stronger impact by our "understanding the nature of
> the patterns that inhabit the levels."  What, exactly, is a "level" if
> not an intellectual pattern?

[Bo]:
> Your SOM-intellect (=what that goes on in minds) has nothing to
> do with MOQ's 4th level. As said a million times the mind/matter
> split is abolished inside the MOQ and - consequently - the
> intellectual level is not SOM's mind where everything resides in
> your opinion. You may reject the switch from Subject/Object to
> Dynamic/Static,  fine then all about the MOQ is hogwash, but your
> one leg inside and one outside is plain impossible. Get it?

I don't say that "all about the MoQ is hogwash", and if I have one leg 
inside it, this is your perspective.
I think Pirsig's concept of Value is original and significant to philosophy. 
I just don't believe that he's postulated it correctly, particularly with 
respect to the epistemology of value-sensibility and Value's independent 
nature as the primary source.  The application of  "Dynamic" and "Static" to 
patterns of existence confuses just about everybody, and these terms are not 
useful metaphysically.

[Ham]:
> If a tree is a pattern, why isn't the biological process that produces
> it also a pattern?  If a leaf that grows on the tree limb is a pattern,
> why isn't the photo-synthesis by which it is sustained not a pattern?

[Bo]
> Against better judgment I will answer: Who has told you
> otherwise? A tree is a biological pattern and the processes that
> produces and sustains it are inorganic patterns in biology's
> service. Photosynthesis itself is inorganic  yet it's product is used
> to build the tree.

What I was trying to demonstrate to Marsha is that you can apply the term 
"pattern" to anything and everything, but insofar as being a substitute for 
"objects", patterns can be defined as relatively stable events experienced 
in the time continuum.  Incidentally, objects are no more "real" to me than 
subjects.  I view objects as representing the essential value of human 
sensibility in objective form, whereas subjective awareness is an 
individuated form of Sensibility that actualizes objects through experience. 
Insofar as philosophy is limited to existence, I'm very much in Pirsig's 
camp.  Value is is the essence of experiential existence.  But there would 
be no existence if there were no agency to experience it, and the 
Sensibility/Otherness split is what makes this possible.

[Ham]:
> I've been accused of unenlightened SOMism because I acknowledge
> the subject/object division of existence.

[Bo]:
> SOM (minus "M") is the highest static value so you will not be
> accused (by me at least) for operating from that level's premises,
> it's only when you take its S/O distinction to be reality's ultimate
> ground you are lost.

You misquote me.  I never said S/O is the ultimate ground of reality.  I 
said that existence is a dichotomy--a duality, if you will--and an ontology 
divided cannot stand as the primary (ultimate) source.  Value may be 
understood to stand between the contingencies of the dichotomy, connecting 
man with (his and) its essential source.  But Value requires a sensible 
agent to be realized, and so we're back to the dualism again.  Hierarchies, 
levels, and patterns, no matter how "dynamic" the metaphor used to describe 
them, do not "overcome" difference.  And existence is a differentiated 
system.

IMO.

Ham