[MD] Bitterness over Betterness

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Joe --

[Ham]:
>> 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.
>
> Joe:
> This is my understanding of SOM in which only Substance
> has real existence, everything else is a modifier (accident
> which receives its existence from the substance).

Then I don't understand what you call SOM, Joe.  After all, it doesn't stand 
for Substance of Metaphysics.  Where are the subjects and objects, and what 
are they made of?   (To me they're 'existents', the objects made of matter, 
the subjects made of some non-material substance.)  It was my understanding 
that subject-object metaphysics is the common or universal concept of 
reality in which existence starts with the Big Bang, energizes atomic 
particles to form finite entities, and proceeds through the process of 
evolution to create an ordered, self-subsistent system that eventually gives 
rise to biological life forms.  The only "modifier" in this process is the 
law of natural selection, unless one believes in a "supernatural designer".

[Ham]:.
>> 2)  Repetition of this accident thoughout existence creates
>> several levels of Quality.
>
> Joe:
> You are playing with the word "accident" which means
> non-essential and conclude that it must receive its existence
> from the other.  Quality is not an accident since it has its
> own existence in MOQ through evolution which is defined
> as levels in existence.

It seems you are equating MOQ to evolution rather than Quality.  Again, the 
only "quality" one can assign to natural process is that it progresses in an 
orderly fashion towards greater complexity, at least as viewed over time.

[Ham]:
>> 3)  Quality (the adjective) morphs into Quality (the noun)
>> by the process of evolution.
>
> Joe:
> This is a birds eye metaphysics which can be read in many ways.
> In MOQ DQ/SQ represent different levels in existence, one
> indefinable yet knowable like emotions, the other definable like
> intellectual concepts.
>
> In an ontology Time (a measure of change) is immaterial to
> the principle of change.  In evolution before and after are timeless
> in a DQ/SQ metaphysical description which in MOQ are levels
> in existence.  Continuation is time sensitive only in first and last.

[Ham]:
>> 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"?

[Joe]:
> Emotions are indefinable yet we cognize them.  They embody
> a level in existence different from the defined concepts of the
> intellectual level.  Emotions follow my individuality, and only
> when they are totally repressed or disarranged am I subject to
> reprisals for criminal activity when I have no defense for what
> I did, or wanted.  The jury system of law exemplifies the
> difficulty of judgment, and maybe the jury will understand.

The jury is out right now.  But to be sure I understand you correctly, I 
need to know why "levels" are not also intellectually "cognized", and how 
emotions could possibly not "follow individuality".  Aren't we ourselves 
(the subjects) feeling the emotions -- including the "quality" or degree of 
goodness that we experience?   And isn't morality learning from this 
emotional sensibility how to optimize goodness throughout society?

I guess my query is leading toward the question: Why do we need a 
metaphysics of Quality when mankind has demonstrated its ability to 
establish a moral civilization with plain old SOM?   (I realize I'm playing 
devil's advocate with you here, but I'd really like to hear your answer.)

 Thanks, again, Joe.
Ham