[MD] Capitalism: my experience

[Ham Priday]

Platt, Ron, John, et al --

Platt to John:
> If we can keep in mind that the MOQ consists of static
> value pattern levels plus DQ, then perhaps Bo's interpretation
> will be better understood.

Ron:
> If S/O division of reality is direct experience, as you state above,
> it conflicts with the ZMM conclusion that value is direct
> experience and S/O division is a culturally dominant idea.
>
> If S/O is indeed reality (direct experience) then why would we
> change our "metaphysical" assumptions based on it since it
> would then theoretically cover all of direct experience?
> Why switch from SOM to MoQ?

Platt:
> But it doesn't cover "all of direct experience" as Pirsig clearly states.
> It doesn't cover value. S/O constricts direct experience to subjects
> and objects.  MOQ corrects that nearsightedness.

Ron:
> How does MoQ account for value if S/O is intellect?

Platt
> Direct experience.

Ron:
> You said that was S/O division

Platt
> All divisions originate from direct experience. S/O is one division.
> But, it excludes values. The MOQ is another division -- DQ/SQ.
> But it includes values.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!

Who said that S/O excludes values?  I appreciated values long before I ever 
heard of MOQ, and so did you all.  When you fall in love, you value your 
beloved.  If you love music, you don't have to channel into some DQ mode to 
experience its value.  Indeed, how could you enjoy music without hearing it 
sung or played on a musical instrument?  That, my friends, is the value of 
S/O existence.

Yet, Platt says "S/O constricts direct experience to subjects and objects." 
The deception in this assertion is that there is a distinction between 
"common" experience and "direct" experience, when in fact ALL experience is 
S/O experience.

If nothing else, subjects are "experiencers" and everything of value is 
associated with the experiential (objective) world.  Unexperienced value is 
an oxymoron, or, as Pirsig himself said: "If a thing has no value it doesn't 
exist."  Of course it's conceivable that you could imagine a value that 
isn't experienced, and you might even call it 'DQ', but where is the 
justification for positing it as Reality?  (And Pirsigians are paranoid 
about faith-based theories?)

We are all value-sensible creatures.  Value is what binds us to the 
essential Source.  But we don't "experience" value per se.  Cognitive 
experience is the differentiation of value into things and events (i.e., 
"value patterns") that constitute our space/time world.  Our realization of 
value--consciously, emotionally, sensually, and intellectually--relates 
directly to this experience.  In short, common experience is as "direct" as 
human beings ever get to Value.

Essentially speaking,
Ham.