[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 21 Jun 2010 at 19:03, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:

> [Platt]
> He himself said, "It was this intellectual level that was screwing everything
> up." (Lila, 24)  His meaning is clear. 
> 
> [Arlo]
> THIS. One among many. Not THE. "Was this the intellectual pattern that [was
> going to run things]? (don't have my full e-LILA at home" (LILA).

[Platt]
Check the full quote: "Now that intellect was in command of society for the 
first time in history, was this the intellectual pattern it was going to run 
society with?" (Lila, 22) Note "intellect" in command of society, i.e., the 
intellectual level. One, not many.

 Anyway, the quote I offered said "THIS intellectual level." Are you suggesting 
this intellectual level is one among many?

[Arlo]
> But never mind this, he explicitly states that he his idea is that SOM is but
> one intellectual pattern, and the MOQ another. He says the SOL undermines his
> meaning. Yes, it IS clear what his meaning is, it is just what he says it is.
> 
> But, again, the point is that Bo's MOQ is NOT Pirsig's MOQ. You can have all
> the valid dialogue about which is better, but you can NOT claim that SOL is
> what "Pirsig meant".

[Platt]
I do claim and provided evidence from his own words, which you ignored. 

> So you disagree with Pirsig. I disagree with him on some points. No problem
> with that. Embrace it. Run with it. Tell everyone why Bo's MOQ is superior to
> Pirsig's MOQ, but stop with the nonsense that tries to say the SOL is what
> Pirsig meant, when he clearly and explicitly has denied this.
> 
> Personally, I think Pirsig's MOQ is correct on this issue. And I agree with him
> that the SOL undermines its power. You adhere to Bo's MOQ, and this is fine.
> Just be honest about the distinction.
 
[Platt]
"Honesty" is not the issue. The distinction and significance of the MOQ is.