[MD] Intellectual Level

[Ham Priday]

Holiday Greetings, Platt, Marsha, Arlo, and All  --

In the unlikely hope that fresh insight might clear the air as we approach 
the new year, I'd like to address the epistemological misconception that has 
led to this discussion.

On Wed, 12/29, at 8:17 PM, Platt Holden<plattholden at gmail.com> wrote:
> No matter how you slice it, the intellectual level (described by Pirsig
> as manipulation of abstract symbols) presumes the subject/object
> division and is thus the SOL.


On Wed, 12/29, at 9:06 PM, Arlo Bensinger<ajb102 at psu.edu> responded:
> A subject-object metaphysics is in fact a metaphysics in which the first
> division of Quality - the first slice of undivided experience is into 
> subjects
> and objects. ... What he had seen is that there is a metaphysical box that
> sits above these two boxes, Quality itself. And once he'd seen this he 
> also
> saw a huge number of ways in which Quality can be divided.  Subjects
> and objects are just one of the ways. (LILA)

On Wed, 12/29, at 9:58 PM, Marsha V<valkyr at att.net> quoted the MoQ Textbook:
> Pirsig uses the term 'subject-object metaphysics' (SOM) for any
> metaphysics (explicitly or implicitly) that perceives reality as either 
> mind
> and/or matter such as idealism, materialism, and dualism."

I don't know the "MoQ Textbook" or its author, but Marsha's definition (read 
in the context of the LILA quote) reveals the source of all this confusion.

In fact, subject-object duality is NOT a "metaphysics", despite Pirsig's 
pronouncement of it as such.  Subjects and objects are simply the way the 
actualized world (relational existence) is experienced.  There is no 
"undivided experience".  This notion, in fact, is the fallacy which has led 
to unending and unnecessary debate in this forum.  Once we understand that 
experience serves to "differentiate" Value (Quality), the SOM/SOL 
contradiction disappears.  Everything we experience is added to memory, 
which enables us to make intellectual and moral judgments relative to our 
existential position in Reality.  Intellect functions to make sense of 
experience, which is the basis of man's innate rationality.

Cognitive awareness, sensory experience, memory recall, and intellection 
(reasoning) are all proprietary to the self.  By suggesting that Intellect 
is a level of Quality, rather than a function of the subjective mind, Mr. 
Pirsig has made epistemology incomprehensible and the self undefinable.  To 
regard a "hierarchy of levels" as a metaphysical ontology is in itself 
something less than intellectual.

Metaphysics properly begins with the problem of "division" which is not a 
"slice of Quality" but the difference between sensible awareness and its 
undivided Source.  In the absence of proprietary sensibility there is no 
existence.  Indeed, were it not for the separation of cognitive agents from 
the primary Source, there would be no experience by which to measure the 
value of goodness, greatness, virtue, or truth.  All of these "qualities" 
are relational, whereas the Source is absolute.  Take away the difference 
between selfness and otherness, and you eliminate finitude.  Since what is 
absolute can possess no other, finite "beingness" can only be actualized  by 
the negation or "exclusion" of value-sensibility from its undivided Source.

Happy New Year,
Ham