Hi Ron --
> I've been emersing myself in Bodvar's work on the SOL concept and > I have to say I'm with him. I believe as well as Ham, that how reality > is percieved is through Subject object perception. To percieve and > understand any part of reality is to percieve it as subject and object. Undoubtedly, Bodvar's SOL (and its myriad acronyms) has impacted the Metaphysics of Quality. But I think your statement above crystalizes an argument that gets lost in Bo's attempt to "reassemble the MoQ levels". For me, the single Bodvar assertion that stands out above all the others in its philosophical relevance is this one: > "Intellectual quality"... ought to be the VALUE of the S/O divide. Since "Intellectual quality" is just a Pirsigian metaphor for conscious perception, what this suggests to me is that the Value of the S/O divide is the source of experience. I think this is true, whether we regard proprietary awareness as a biological or psychic function. The metaphysical problem, insofar as the MoQ is concerned, is that Value is relational, which means that it is sensible only within an SOM system. And since Pirsig has really not extended Value or Quality to a "higher sensiblity" beyond the relational universe, there has been no need to confront the issue of transcendency. In other words, Pirsig's "primary source" remains the object of proprietary awareness, which is to say that the primary source is still a subject/object dualism. I find this metaphysically unacceptable. Had Mr. Prisg attributed the SO division to a Creator, Ultimate Source, or Prime Mover, I would be much more inclined to view his thesis as creditable. Conceivably this could still be done. Value (or Quality) could then be defined as the divided (SO) perspective of an "essential Oneness". This would also imply purposeful "intent" on the part of the Creator, rather than a teleology of "betterness" based on insentient objects valuing Quality. As it now stands, the MoQ has become a punching bag for debators seeking to parse levels and patterns ad infinitum. I appreciate the sincereity of your position, Ron, and I agree with you that Bo's ideas should be taken seriously. Unfortunately, having arrived here from a fundamentally different perspective, I don't speak the same language and can't help you in sorting out the MoQ problems. (I couldn't rise to the task when Bo was an active participant, either.) But I thank you for mentioning me and wish you the best in separating what is ":static" from what is "dynamic" in Pirsig's world. Regards, Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
