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

[X Acto]

Hello Arlo,
I'd like to preface again by establishing that I am using this occasion to sharpen
rhetorical skills and hopefully wring a little clarity out of what we mean when contributers
say that what makes Pragmatic truths verifyable in experience is their success and
satisfaction in the stream of experience. 
 
Words like "environment" and "nature" are thus rendered as conceptual catagories.
 
Experience is all we can say there "is" with any kind of certainty. But we go a step further
and use words like "the good" "betterness and "Quality" in our explanations.
 
In the hopes of rescueing an important philosophical discussion on this subject
and better clarify for everyone what we mean by using the term "SOM",
we can spare alot of posts of posturing and frustration that never really
address the content. THAT being said.......lets address the content..
[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 relies}
I think that needs to be highlighted more. Often this gets neglected. But they do concern pre-experiential
experience.
[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'. 

(Ron replies)
I find hard to explain the meaning of the term without implying a pre-experiential "be-ing".

[Arlo]
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.


[Ron}
And I think that is what Pirsig does when he employs the 4 levels explanation and evolution. Both concern the usefulness
of pre-expeirential concepts. His terms change but hes talkin SOM in the inorganic and biological levels which is what
often causes quite a bit of confusion around here, the use of Pirsig quotes becomes contradictory and a whole lot
of key strokes are spilled over a basic clarification of meaning.


thnx