[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[John Carl]

Bo,

I'm gonna leap in here and oppose your statements that I find utterly
ridiculous.  Sometimes you say things that I don't understand, other times I
do understand and disagree utterly.

Utter disagreement deserves utterance as part of the interpretative process.

Bo:

You make so many strange assertion Dave that it's hard to take you
> seriously.



John:

Disagree.  Dave T has made more sense than I've seen in a while on this
forum.

Bo:

 So you see what is illusory

> and what is true has varied, but SOM's "essence" is the S/O
> DISTINCTION. Write that down on your little kindergarten blackboard.
>
>
John:

The "essence" of SOM is solipsism - regarding "self" as the supreme value.

Bo:

 not until Pirsig has Western

> philosophy moved forward after Kant.
>
>
John:

 Pirsig isn't acceptable to Western Philosophy so I can't see that  IT has
moved forward.  And I just posted an excerpt explaining why.  Also, he's not
completely alone in his refutation of SOM, as you keep asserting and I keep
refuting.


DT prev:

> Our experience indicates that overtime "concepts of thought" develop in
> > the mind to help order experience. Some may be inventions of the mind,
> > but most often these are not conscience decisions but adoptions based
> > on similar experience and knowledge shared within social groups.
>
>
Bo:


> THis is so arch-somish that I have no comment, With friends like you
> the MOQ hardly need enemies.
>


John:

"adoptions based on similar experience and knowledge shared within social
groups" sounds exactly right to me.  What else is there?

The MoQ doesn't have enough friends.  It has no enemies at all.  Nobody
attacks a new metaphysics - or if they do it has the opposite effect than
that intended.  They just ignore it completely.  Ignore-ance is the enemy.
 Attack is the friendliest "taking it seriously" I can imagine.