[MD] The relativity of the MoQ

[skutvik at online.no]

Ham 

7 Sep. 

Bo before:
> > "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. ....

That may be so I just said "what we know as ..." SOM's axiom is that 
there is a reality outside of - and unaffected by mind. This external 
reality may be considered inscrutable, the point is that it is objective in 
contrast to subjective mind.

> We can "know" only as subjects confronting objects.  Since ultimate
> reality is neither subjective nor objective, we have no experience or
> knowledge of it. 

This is something else and most important:  in moqspeak the SOM 
(intellectual) pattern that "took off on a purpose of its own" and 
resulted in a Reality preceding - and the source of - the subject/object 
configuration.

> "Quality" is a measure of Value which is relative to the observer.  

Wait, the Quality/Reality is the source, also of the subject (the 
observer) who allegedly deems his objective environment (including 
other subjects) good or bad. I know you insist that the subject comes 
first, but in that case you're merely a SOM idealist.  

> So when Pirsig equates Quality with Reality he is invoking SOM
> (existential) reality.  

THIS I agree with. The blunder is that of a Super-Quality sitting above 
the DQ/SQ split. The true context is that Quality is the DQ that has 
spawned the static levels. There is no Quality outside the MOQ as little 
as there is Newtonian Gravity outside Newtonian Physics

Anyway this blunder resulted in the Quality/MOQ "meta-metaphysics" 
that overrides the MOQ and is a result from Pirsig's disastrous 
association with James whose view was Pre-conceptual/Conceptual.  

> The MoQ is a relativistic ontology because it is based on Quality which
> is our finite, relational experience of Value. 

?? At least, Quality as (a) Reality different from the conceptual reality 
is merely a new form of SOM. The conceptual reality = subjective/ 
Quality Reality = objective (not necessaily concrete, but the real reality)  

[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.

Ham: 
> S/O reality is neither "right" or "wrong"  It's our existence as
> individuated human beings.  

The mind/matter split in its "mind/body" variety is wrong, i.e. 
nonexistent, and that indicates that the S/O source isn't our existence 
... except on the intellectual level. It was not existence at the social 
level an will not be at MOQ's "meta-level"  

> 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. 

OK, I buy Cusanus'  "primary source" and your "Essence" as 
equivalents of DQ and if this source has created the World, Life, 
Social Life and the Individual (a funny way of defining the 4th. level, but 
it's an aspect of it) then we all agree. Cusanus and you preceded 
Pirsig. I prostrate myself.   

> 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.

Chronos was the arch-god of the Greek Mythology, something that 
proves the value of seeing Existence as a chronological rising of the 
Source's" fall-outs. 

Do we have cold fusion?
 
Bodvar