[MD] Putting SOM back into the MOQ

[Hamilton Priday]

Greetings Dave, Ron, Arlo, and All --

The full heading of this thread is:
"Putting SOM back into the MOQ by excluding SQ; let's not do that say some 
of us."

It was introduced by David Morey on Apr. 30, who suggested:
> Let's not divide reality into subjective experience and objective things,
> let's see that experience is made up of both static and dynamic quality,
> that patterns are just part of experience and are not separate objects
> outside of experience.

In the course of the discussion, Ron said:
> 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 contributors say that what makes Pragmatic truths
> verifiable in experience is their success and satisfaction in the stream
> of experience.
> 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 spirit of clarification, may I suggest that the statement "Experience 
is all we can say there 'is' with any kind of certainty" is more properly 
expressed as "Experience is all we KNOW", since all knowledge is based on 
experience.  What "IS" is a different question altogether -- one that 
experience does not provide us.

Yet, Ron also said:
> Eh, what about the four levels explanation?  THAT certainly addresses
> preconceptual patterns of value.

To which Arlo retorted:
> The four levels of Pirsig's MOQ are POST-experiential.

Arlo is correct in that the four levels are conceptual (i.e., 
intellectualized or hypothesized) constructs derived from experience.  S/O 
is Experience, with or without the M.  And, again, attempting to systemize 
experiential reality via reason doesn't lead us to any kind of certainty 
about Reality itself.

[Arlo]:
> 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".

Now that is the first real insight to break through in this latest paper 
chase!

Can we logically call "existence" -- whether objects experienced by 
subjects, patterns systemized by intellect, or events presumed to have 
occurred before the 'now' or beyond the 'here' of consciousness -- that 
WHICH IS?   In other words, can we say that Ultimate Reality is 
unconditional BEING?

Yes, of course we can.  But the use of "being" to define the true Reality is 
problematic.  For, as we all know, "being" is an objective referent in human 
understanding.  Even the conception of our own individual being forces 
selfness into an objective category.

That's why, although many of you don't like the word, I've chosen 'Essence' 
to define the fundamental Source.

Nevertheless, this dialogue between Ron and Arlo has succeeded in "wringing 
a little clarity" out of the usual Pirsig postulates endlessly circulating 
through this forum.

For that I commend all three of you gentlemen.

Essentially speaking,
Ham

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

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 replies]:
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.