[MD] Awareness and consciousness in the MOQ

[craigerb at comcast.net]

Arlo,
Thank you for your thoughtful response to my post.
This is embarrassing.  I wrote a sketchy outline of what I wanted to think about this topic &
hit SEND instead of SAVE.  
So rather than respond to your response to what I didn't mean to say, I'll start over:

I think Pirsig's distinction in Lila is relevant here:
When we discuss the MoQ, we are doing philosophy.  When we discuss Pirsig's views we are doing
“philosophology”.  So I think Pirsig himself would say that the MoQ is not identical to or limited to his view.
I also don't think a metaphysics is a description or something to be described, in the usual sense.
It isn't data but a structuring of the data. 

[Arlo]
> ...there are many 'metaphysics of Quality', including 'SOM'...

IMHO this last part is wrong.
1) Any moQ must hold that subjects & objects are not fundamental.
2) SOM does not hold that subjects & objects are not fundamental
  (or SOM holds that subjects & objects are fundamental). 
3) :. SOM is not an moQ.

The MoQ subsumes SOM.  The MoQ accounts for everything that SOM does,
but MoQ does so at a deeper level of understanding.  The MoQ makes SOM
part of the MoQ.  But SOM isn't an moQ any more than a gear shift is an automobile. 
    
You started with the question (I paraphrase): Is there a distinction between
the MoQ & Pirsig's metaphysics?
I answered "Yes", because of the distinction between philosophy & philosophology.
I think, moreover, there is a distinction between THE MoQ & AN MoQ.
THE MoQ is the metaphysics which started with Pirsig (influenced by Eastern thought,
Northrop, et al.) but has grown by additions of others' views, principles, reasoning, attitudes, etc.
The MoQ has a central core about which there is a concensus.  Other parts are controversial & tentative.
Some parts of the MoQ Pirsig might even disagree with. 
AN MoQ is a particular metaphysics which sufficiently overlaps with THE MoQ & which does not deny the
central core of THE MoQ.  
Craig