Hi Craig --
Correcting my interpretation of Pirsig's metaphysics, you said: > Pirsig has called experiential reality S/O and SOM the > philosophy that systemizes it. There is pre-conceptual > experience of DQ & also experience of static patterns[S/O]. > Both the MoQ & SOM systemize the experience of S/O. > The difference is that for the latter the experience is > fundamental, but not for the former. According to your analysis, Pirsig systemizes two realities as constituting the MoQ: the experiential (S/O) and the pre-conceptual (DQ). I would argue that experience and conceptualization are both forms of individual awareness. If DQ is a concept, it cannot be pre-conceptual. If it is not a concept, it could not have been conceived. Therefore, what Pirsig has hypothesized is one reality explained in terms of two different systems: reality as experienced (empirical) and reality as conceptualized (metaphysical). If I've interpreted your synopsis correctly, what makes the conceptualized system more "fundamental" than the experienced system? If experience isn't fundamental, what would you call it? Mythical? Illusory? Abstractive? Phenomenal? Thanks Craig, 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/
