Hi Bo (John and Platt mentioned) --
"Ultimate reality" is what we know as OBJECTIVE. while "experienced reality is the SUBJECTIVE, in other words: SOM.
Actually, "ultimate reality" is what we DON'T know. We can "know" only as subjects confronting objects. Since ultimate reality is neither subjective nor objective, we have no experience or knowledge of it.
"Quality" is a measure of Value which is relative to the observer. So when Pirsig equates Quality with Reality he is invoking SOM (existential) reality. The MoQ is a relativistic ontology because it is based on Quality which is our finite, relational experience of Value.
John wants me to "prove" that the S/O division is existentially insurmountable. I don't know why a formal proof should be necessary, since it is empirically obvious. Platt talks about "getting lost in work" and "contemplating beauty" as ways of momentarily losing "I-ness". But all such "altered states of consciousness" depend on experience of some kind, and experience is subjective. Whatever is subjective is by definition separated from what is objective, and until these two aspects of existence (along with Value and Nothingness) are totally merged into one, there is no bridging of the gap.
[Bo, to John]:
You ask for a refutation of the S/O split being impossible to prove? THAT you won't achieve, it was the S/O divide (as existence's fundament) not just being impossible to prove, but being WRONG that triggered the MOQ.
That the "mind/matter" (a S/O off-shoot) split is just as impossible to prove is also correct, but what's more, it's WRONG, matter and mind interacts freely. Particularly the mind/body variety.
S/O reality is neither "right" or "wrong" It's our existence as individuated human beings. We can spend all our lives contemplating our navel or theorizing about ultimate reality in relativistic terms, but no such description is possible. Cusanus realized the indescribable nature of the primary source back in the 15th century and came up with the connotation 'Not-other' to define it. I doubt that any definition proffered since then better expresses what I call Essence.
As told, the split that Ham regards "undeniable" is SOM, the beginning of which was when Socrates invented the Truth/Appearance split, whereupon Plato decided that the sense world is just a shadowy version of the true ideal world. This split worked its way up through the centuries creating paradoxes and inconsistencies in its wake. Can't really repeat all this "every schoolboy knows" stuff. This is what the MOQ "repairs" with its new fundamental split - the Dynamic/Static which is just as unprovable (let's not fool ourselves) but dissolves SOM's paradoxes (by relegating it the role of its own intellectual level where the S/O split is a static value) and produces no paradoxes of its own ... as far as I can see.
The paradoxes of the MoQ are as I described them in my second paragraph above. Frankly, I don't think a historical chronology of philosophers' thinking since Plato helps us understand them or offers further insight. But I realize that an evolutionary thesis like the MoQ presupposes the evolution of concepts as well. It confirms my view that Pirsig never extended his theory beyond relational existence.
Thanks, Bo and all. Essentially yours, 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/
