[MD] logically incoherent

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Joe --

You suggested that DQ is an element in logic.  I asked you to support this 
statement with an example or demonstration.  Instead, you write a 
dissertation on levels of evolution. . . .

[Joe]:
> Hi Ham and all,
>
> The point I was trying to make is that truth in evolution is best
> interpreted as levels in existence.  In SOM existence is divided
> into a real existence and an intentional modality of existence for
> knowledge in a mind.  In SOM modality the conception of an
> evolution of reality as levels in existence is not real but only
> intentional.  The mind creates no real existence.

According to Joe, there is DQ Reality, SO "real existence", and SO 
"intentional existence".  So instead of self/other duality, you're proposing 
a tertiary paradigm.  Is this added complexity really necessary?  And what 
creates the "real existence" if not the mind?  I see no difference between 
"intentional" and "real" in the context of experiential existence.

> In the past how it created an intentional existence for knowledge
> required further verification.  Faith became an arbiter and the
> inquisition by the Church led to rethinking SOM metaphysics.

One doesn't get knowledge from faith, and I never understood why Pirsigians 
insist that subject-object knowledge acquired from ordinary experience is a 
"metaphysics".

> MOQ, on the other hand, has the model for metaphysics DQ/SQ
> describing a definable/indefinable reality. Pirsig describes metaphysics
> as a direct perception of levels in existence, evolution, rather than
> an intentional only perception of a model for existence.
>
> The framework for knowledge in an evolutionary model in existence
> is not in the mind, but is rock/water/air/mind/etc., solid.  Indefinable
> reality can be experienced, e.g., Love, Dq only.  Sentient Life,
> self-movement against gravity, has a metaphysical basis in SQ
> existence instinct/will evolving from DQ.  The gravitational pull is
> described mathematically.

It's all too complicated for this simple-minded SOMist, Joe.  I'm confused 
enough that Pirsig has ascribed "dynamic" to the ultimate Reality (which is 
unjustified IMO) while defining a world in constant flux as "static 
patterns".  In addition to interpreting the temporal process of evolution as 
"levels", we are required to classify all experience as either "definable" 
or "indefinable".  Now you add "intentional" and "real" to this list of 
experiential qualifiers.  Is there no end to the MoQ's complexity?

> This activates a perception that existence participates in an
> evolutionary model. The real/intentional model of SOM places
> evolution not in existence but in a mind responding to a real
> and intentional division in existence.

Existence doesn't only "participate in an evolutionary model", it IS 
evolutionary as experienced.  Have you never considered that evolution 
(process in time) is simply the temporal; mode of human experience? 
Inasmuch as all knowledge is subjective (i.e., "in the mind"), why not call 
it "intentional" and reserve "real" for the Reality that transcends 
space/time existence?

> Evolution, levels in existence, provides a fuller more-precise
> basis for reality. An intentional existence in a mind manipulated
> by a Faith premise is open to disaster.  The logic in mathematics,
> denying evolution, is open to abuse.

I fail to see how arbitrarily assigned levels affords us a more "precise" 
concept of reality than the universe conceived as a continuous work in 
progress.  I'll let pass the "disaster" of a Faith premise (which I assume 
is a reference to my Essentialism).  But I am curious to know why you think 
mathematical logic "denies evolution".

I'm sorry to be so critical, Joe, but your cosmology seems unnecessarily 
contrived to me.

Anyway, thanks for the analysis.

--Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

> On 9/7/11 9:23 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Also, you state that DQ is "not a non-existent element in logic."  By 
>> this
>> double-negative you infer that DQ IS an element in logic.  Can you show 
>> me
>> where or how Dynamic Quality (an indefinable term that Pirsig invented) 
>> is a
>> logical element?
>>
>> Otherwise, I don't understand the point you are trying to make.