[MD] The relativity of the MoQ

[Ham Priday]

Hi Bo (John and Platt mentioned) --



> "Ultimate reality" is what we know as OBJECTIVE.
> while "experienced reality is the SUBJECTIVE,
> in other words: SOM.

Actually, "ultimate reality" is what we DON'T know.  We can "know" only as 
subjects confronting objects.  Since ultimate reality is neither subjective 
nor objective, we have no experience or knowledge of it.

"Quality" is a measure of Value which is relative to the observer.  So when 
Pirsig equates Quality with Reality he is invoking SOM (existential) 
reality.  The MoQ is a relativistic ontology because it is based on Quality 
which is our finite, relational experience of Value.

John wants me to "prove" that the S/O division is existentially 
insurmountable.  I don't know why a formal proof should be necessary, since 
it is empirically obvious.  Platt talks about "getting lost in work" and 
"contemplating beauty" as ways of momentarily losing "I-ness".  But all such 
"altered states of consciousness" depend on experience of some kind, and 
experience is subjective.  Whatever is subjective is by definition separated 
from what is objective, and until these two aspects of existence (along with 
Value and Nothingness) are totally merged into one, there is no bridging of 
the gap.

[Bo, to John]:
> You ask for a refutation of the S/O split being impossible to prove?
> THAT you won't achieve, it was the S/O divide (as existence's
> fundament) not just being impossible to prove, but being WRONG
> that triggered the MOQ.

> That the "mind/matter" (a S/O off-shoot) split is just as
> impossible to prove is also correct, but what's more,
> it's WRONG, matter and mind interacts freely.
> Particularly the mind/body variety.

S/O reality is neither "right" or "wrong"  It's our existence as 
individuated human beings.  We can spend all our lives contemplating our 
navel or theorizing about ultimate reality in relativistic terms, but no 
such description is possible.  Cusanus realized the indescribable nature of 
the primary source back in the 15th century and came up with the connotation 
'Not-other' to define it.  I doubt that any definition proffered since then 
better expresses what I call Essence.

> As told, the split that Ham regards "undeniable" is SOM,
> the  beginning of which was when Socrates invented the
> Truth/Appearance split, whereupon Plato decided that
> the sense world is just a shadowy version of the true ideal
> world. This split worked its way up through the centuries
> creating paradoxes and inconsistencies in its wake. Can't
> really repeat all this "every schoolboy knows" stuff.
>
> This is what the MOQ "repairs" with its new fundamental split
> - the Dynamic/Static which is just as unprovable (let's not fool
> ourselves) but dissolves SOM's paradoxes (by relegating it
> the role of its own intellectual level where the S/O split is a
> static value) and produces no paradoxes of its own ...
> as far as I can see.

The paradoxes of the MoQ are as I described them in my second paragraph 
above.
Frankly, I don't think a historical chronology of philosophers' thinking 
since Plato helps us understand them or offers further insight.  But I 
realize that an evolutionary thesis like the MoQ presupposes the evolution 
of concepts as well.  It confirms my view that Pirsig never extended his 
theory beyond relational existence.

Thanks, Bo and all.

Essentially yours,
Ham