[MD] the sophists

[Ham Priday]

Hi Bo --


> Thanks Ham I really appreciated this.
> ... Now Arlo, DMB (maybe Andre if he understands
> what this means) see who is your ally now.

I'm always pleased when something I say touches a common cord with a 
correspondent, whoever it is.  Likewise, it's gratifying to read a statement 
that reflects my own position on an issue, whether it's philosophy or 
politics.  More acknowledgement of understanding (when merited) and less 
condemnation for failing to understand would make these discussions more 
productive, in my opinion.

That said, by agreeing with a particular statement I am not lending my 
endorsement to its author's overall conception.  We are all dealing here 
with what, in my opinion, is an unnecessarily complex reality theory.  I see 
you waging a largely semantic battle over a metaphoric hierarchy which 
purports to replace diversity with an elaborate scheme of levels and 
patterns.  Inasmuch as the Pirsigian language is not well defined, much less 
understood, I would encourage you to back away from the MoQ long enough to 
present your concept in common terms, rather than struggle to strictly fit 
it to the "official paradigm."

As a "nonconformist", I am forced to use this approach, and it has enabled 
me to make some points that are fundamental to my own ontology.  There is 
much ambiguity today in distinguishing Idealism, for example, from 
Rationalism, Empiricism, and Objectivism.  Since people tend to identify 
with specific categories, a concept introduced as 'Sophist' may bias the 
self-styled 'idealist' to view the idea as empirical, or vice-versa.  To put 
it another way, the concept is more important than the words we use to 
convey it.

I am still stuggling to get across two basic concepts here.  One is the idea 
that experience, perception, and cognizance are all facets of subjective 
awareness, whereas value, being, and difference belong to a cosmic order 
which lies outside this "mental compartment".  Together, these two 
contingencies represent the provisional mode of reality we (as its active 
agents) call existence.

The second concept is that existence is a creation in process (i.e, 
evolutionary), whereas the primary source is uncreated and immutable.
One of the reasons these concepts have fallen on deaf ears is that Mr. 
Pirsig has made a "metaphysics" of existence (SOM) which invalidates the 
need for a creator or primary source.  Again, as a valuist, I applaud the 
"quality" emphasis of the MoQ, but, as an essentialist, I cannot subscribe 
to a worldview in which Quality is posited as the agent of reality.

Of course, this is not your battle, Bo.  Indeed, you may disagree with my 
ontology.  Nevertheless, there are points on which we are in accord, and it 
is at these intersections that progress may be possible.

Thanks for the kind words, and best wishes,
Ham