[MD] Bitterness over Betterness

[Ham Priday]

Hi Joe --



> In SOM, only substance exists.  Quality is the first accident modifying
> substance and only has existence in a substance.  In SOM evolution is
> meaningless.
>
> I observe evolution when Pirsig rightly observed that existence is not
> unique in an individual, but that there are levels in existence DQ/SQ in 
> an
> individual.  Quality is a noun.
>
> How can we know the undefined exists, so that we envision the adjective
> "Quality" morph into the the noun "Quality"?  An answer is evolution,
> "levels in existence". ...

Unless the time sequence is irrelevant in your ontology (interpretation), 
the chronology you've laid out is as follows:

1)  Substance is modified by an "accident" called Quality.
2)  Repetition of this accident thoughout existence creates several levels 
of Quality.
3)  Quality (the adjective) morphs into Quality (the noun) by the process of 
evolution.

Concerning step 2, I'm not sure this represents your view because I don't 
really understand your second paragraph.  For example, what do you mean by 
"existence is not unique in an individual?"  Isn't it obvious that other 
entities exist?  Also, there seems to be something grammatically missing in 
your statement; "...there are levels in existence DQ/SQ in an individual." 
Could you explain that for me?

> An epistemology in which only "Substance" exists is not
> metaphysical.  Emotions exist differently than the substance
> of SOM in being indefinable.  Metaphysics is DQ/SQ reality,
> two different levels of nouns defined, undefined.
> This enables further evolution and a clearer metaphysics for
> reality.  The Sun exists differently than I do, and supports life
> quite beyond my futile endeavors, the solar system.

You lost me after "metaphysical".  Are you saying that emotions are 
indefinable, or that they are not metaphysically definable?  How does 
metaphysics "enable further evolution"?   I would think that evolution only 
applies to the material (substantive) world.  Is this Pirsig's concept that 
Quality moves to "betterness"?

I'll be interested in your clarification of this ontology.

Thanks, Joe.
Ham