[MD] Quality is Appreciation in Value

[skutvik at online.no]

For Ron.

5 Oct. the wooly-headed prophet spaketh thus: 

> The point is The "static inorganic level" is an example of how looking
> at experience in terms of evolutionary theory , a theory based in SOM,
> can be expanded. It is expanded by looking at them in terms of
> personal values. Subjectivism dissolves the moment Ojectivism does.
> How can there  be an "in here" reflection of an independant "out
> there" universe, when that universe is relative to our own
> experiences?

I'm not all sure what the point of the this is, but the MOQ truly is about 
evolution - evolution of Quality. That subjectivism dissolves the 
moment objectivism does we agree about. Thus the universe is NOT 
our own (i.e. subjective) experience, but Quality's first static level. 

> No seesaw..not "untenable" because Objectivism dissolves so does
> subjectivism. This is what you are not understanding. The dilemma is
> What can we say  that we can be certain of? Pirsig says value.

I understand perfectly that subject and object aren't two separate 
realities - as SOM wants it - the one is dependent on the other, in other 
words AN AGGREGATE,namely  MOQ's 4th level, it's the only 
interpretation that makes sense and LILA (inadvertently or not) 
displays this again and again.

Bo before:
> Not in the MOQ where science it is a STATIC intellectual pattern and
> not burdened  with metaphysical proof. But Pirsig's idea about Q-
> science branches - a Q-physics f.ex. - is still-born. 

Ron:
> News flash, a Q-physics is functioning and expanding as we speak. It's
> all about proving their calculations make accurate predictions in
> observation.

I meant a Quality variety of all scientific branches (as Pirsig hints to in 
LILA) you seem to mean  Quantum Physics? No?

Ron earlier
> > > What we subjectivly interpret depends on what we value. And what we
> > > value is based largely on experience (which we have found we can not
> > > completely and absolutely understand based on what we have found)
> > > because....drumrole...it's dynamic and everchanging!. It may not be
> > > defined because it can't be defined. All we can ever do with our
> > > limited viewpoint is struggle to comprehend it by creating simplistic,
> > > limited, exaggerated concepts (static quality).

Bo:
> > I say no more

Ron:
> Why not? this was the part I was looking forward to you addressing.
> Why do you dodge it?


OK if you hanker for my comment. 

"What we subjectively ...."  you write. Now, if one understands the 
MOQ and returns (with that understanding) to our static abode where 
intellect it's the highest one may freely use intellect's lingo based on  
the subject that operates in an objective world. But I'm afraid you still 
wander around in some no-man's land. To repeat your sentence 
"What we subjectively interpret depends on our value". What's the 
subject who interprets? It sounds conspicuously like SOM's self.     

Don't take off on another soaring flight.


Bodvar