[Ham] 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. [Ron] Exactly, value is objective/subjective relevant, When Pirsig says quality is everything, every last bit then states quality is value relation, how else is one to interpret it. Even when it's metaphor describes molecular phenomena as value relations, suggesting the idea that perhaps a better way to look at it is to see atoms prefering bonds based on value, therefore implying the subjective within objective. [Dan] There are many ways of perceiving reality. Subject object metaphysics is a high quality idea, nothing more. [Ron] Dan, I am having difficulties thinking of any alterior perceptions of physical reality short of insanity and/or hallucenations. [Marsha] I agree with Dan. I think of it as all being Quality, there is the known (sq) and the unmanifest (DQ). The known, or static quality, is relational and everchanging. The MOQ is a more elegant, higher quality idea than SOM. [Ron] Exactly, staticly percieved physical reality is Relational,which implies value. the relational value of subjects to objects, I do not see how the term relation is comprehensable in any other form. I agree, MOQ places focus on the value relationship not the subjects and objects themselves. SQ is this distinction, while DQ is the incomprehensible infinite (energy?). While all is DQ, SQ represents the s/o value relation that is percieved. [Dan] If "sensual recognition is based on symbol comprehesion" then it should be no problem to tell me the taste of watermelon. [Ron] To me understanding and comprehension does not allways translate to communicative language. this is why I feel it is a base function, somehow I think a living creature must have some sort of comprehension,however basic, to experience phenomenal reality, I mean must'nt there be some sort of ability to comprehend "betterness" in order to choose it in a value relation? if not then its back to randomness percieved as being assembled in value formations only for the sheer fact that it is static and percievable. Either way it is the shifting of focus in a s/o value structure. [Dan] I asked my cat Goedel about this but he did not answer. Granted he's a bit reticent at times yet I have come to believe he is not now nor will he ever be an intellectual creature. Since Bo states SOM is intellect, I doubt Goedel is operating from a subject object perspective. [Ron] throw an object at Goedel or place some food out for him, if he avoids the object then comes to his food bowl and eats the food, I'd say he is operating in a subject object perspective. [Dan] Once a person realizes there are no subjects and objects then there is only Dynamic awareness of static quality patterns of value. [Ron] but is'nt SOM dynamic awareness of static quality patterns of value? and is'nt realizing something an intellection not an experiential perception of reality like say hallucenations or insanity? is pirsig correct? are the only ones who do truly experience a reality other than subject object distinction what we would term insane? would'nt then the TRUE MOQer be the ones in the padded cells? is this a metaphysics of culturally percieved madness? is this the problem, once you leave the realm of reference, how can you use refferential terms? they could only serve to confuse. refferring to concepts that have no s/o relational value. that which has no relational value is percieved as meaningless is'nt it? Thanks to everyone who has responded, I find this most interesting. 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/
