[MD] knowledge

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Matt --

(Kindly disregard the previous post which got away from me prematurely.)

[Matt to Steve on May 15]:
> ... I'm not sure that anybody really has read "pre-intellectual"
> as "social/bio/inorganic."  Thinking about it that way, however,
> does tend to make us face what exactly we mean by DQ.
> Pirsig did not say "DQ is pre-static experience."  There may
> or may not be an important reason behind this.  However,
> it does cause us to face up to the idea of what it means to be,
> say, pre-subatomic particles. ...
>
> But what could it mean to be pre-electrons?  We might be
> able to extend our understanding of "pre-" to "pre-social,"
> getting back to biological instincts, but pre-lightwaves?
> What does it mean to be in touch with something that is
> before any "thing"?  Why is it we don't melt away when
> this happens?  How come we only talk about the
> nothingness of our culturally constructed "self" rather
> than the brief, or permanent, obliteration of our bodies?
> Why are descriptions of enlightenment not accompanied
> by on-looker reports of how the person faded away
> before their eyes?

Well stated, as usual Matt, and the questions you pose are worthy of
discussion.  As a follower of this forum with no special reason to patronize 
the Quality thesis, I'd like to address two of the issues you've raised.

Although Pirsig did not say "DQ is pre-static experience," he did call
Quality "the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality" and he equated it 
with "pure experience".  Perhaps the reason he didn't posit this pure 
experience specifically as "dynamic" is that subjective experience would 
contaminate the "unpatterned" nature of his primary reality.

As for "what it means to be" something other than human, such as
a sub-atomic particle or light wave, I think it's important to realize
that "being" is not intrinsic to self-awareness--even in "human beings".
Organic being is a contingency of cognizant life, not its essence.  We
borrow beingness from an external reality in order to exist as individuated 
"selves" with the capacity to "be-aware".

Awareness of Quality or Value is the core self of man.  Although I'm
willing to accept human value-sensibility as "pre-intellectual", there is no 
rational justification for imputing awareness to inanimate objects. This is 
where the Quality (Value) thesis falls apart, in my opinion.

You ask "what could it mean to be pre-electrons? ...to be in touch with 
something that is before any "thing"?  But, in fact, we do have this 
understanding; it is demonstrated in our intellectual perspective of the 
universe.  We don't have to "be" an electron to know what it is, nor does an 
electron have to realize value in order to be.  Human beings are the 
"realizers"   Let's give the individual subject some credit.  It is WE, and 
not things, whose reality experience is intellectualized from Value.

Thanks for the provocative speculation, Matt.  (I hope my response doesn't 
provoke the Pirsigians unnecessarily.)

Essentially speaking,
Ham