[MD] Putting SOM back into the MOQ by excluding SQ, let's not do that say some of us

[ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR]

[Ron]
Eh, what about the four levels explanation. THAT certainly addresses preconceptual patterns of value.

[Arlo]
The four levels of Pirsig's MOQ are POST-experiential.

[Ron]
Now to say we sink back to SOM when we begin to theorize beyond the now of experience...

[Arlo]
I'm beginning to think that until people can show they understand the term "SOM", posts where they use this term should be flagged. 

"SOM" refers to pre-experiential existence; whether you call that which precedes experience 'objects' or 'patterns' does not matter, it is the PRE-EXPERIENTIAL assumption that defines SOM, not the use of the word 'object'. 

We "sink back to SOM" when we talk about pre-experiential existence. THAT is SOM. THAT is why the MOQ is different, radically different, when it proposes that ALL static quality ("patterns") are POST-experiential. 

In "SOM", 'we' experience 'static quality'. In the MOQ, 'static quality' emerges FROM experience. These are two radically different views, and THIS is where the "Copernican" revolution of the MOQ is found. 

You can argue that a better metaphysics must include pre-experiential 'things/patterns/objects/existence', but we really need to be clear that this IS "SOM", and that simply not using 'subjects' and 'objects' doesn't change that.