[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 24 Jun 2010 at 14:04, Arlo Bensinger wrote:

> [Platt]
> He said Platt's conclusion -- "The MOQ is the best S/O answer I've 
> found yet." -- undermines the MOQ, meaning by emphasizing the 
> necessary use of S/O language to convey the MOQ its "essence" may be 
> compromised, reducing its value.
> 
> [Arlo]
> You SOL-ists are too funny. He said nothing about the MOQ's essence 
> being compromised, or anything about "the necessary use of S/O 
> language to convey the MOQ". If that is what he MEANT, then that is 
> what he would have SAID. He did not.

[Platt]
Obviously you haven't read Note 132. You might do a little checking before you 
sound off. 

> Platt:
> So, I fully agree with Bo's insight that the SOM and the intellectual 
> level are one and the same. To support it, to protect it, to avoid 
> losing it and sinking back to "anything goes" irrationalism or a 
> "because God says so" mentality, we need to recognize its 
> vulnerability to attacks from academic philosophers, social 
> do-gooders, spiritual evangelists, and its own internal paradoxes. To 
> that end, the MOQ is the best S/O answer I've found yet.
> 
> Pirsig:
> I think this conclusion undermines the MOQ, although that is 
> obviously not Platt's intention. It is like saying that science is 
> really a form of religion. There is some truth to that, but it has 
> the effect dismissing science as really not very important. The MOQ 
> is in opposition to subject-object metaphysics. To say that it is a 
> part of that system which it opposes sounds like a dismissal. I have 
> read that the MOQ is the same as Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Hegel, 
> James, Peirce, Nieztsche, Bergson, and many others even though these 
> people are not held to be saying the same as each other. This kind of 
> comparison is what I have meant by the term, "philosophology." It is 
> done by people who are not seeking to understand what is written but 
> only to classify it so that they don't have to see it as anything 
> new. God knows the MOQ has never had two better friends than Bo and 
> Platt, so this is no criticism of their otherwise brilliant thinking. 
> It's just that I see a lowering of the quality of the MOQ itself if 
> you follow this path of subordinating it to that which it opposes.

[Arlo] 
> The "conclusion" he is speaking about is clearly "that the SOM and 
> the intellectual level are one and the same". Nowhere in his reply do 
> I see anything about "necessary use of S/O language to convey the 
> MOQ" or anything about the MOQ's "essence" being compromised.

[Platt]
If that was the conclusion he is speaking about he would have said so. He did 
not. Anyway, conclusions don't come at the beginning of a statement. They come 
at the end. You ought to take English 101 at your own university. On second 
thought, don't bother. You won't learn much about quality expression and 
meanings, but a lot about multiculturialism. 
 
[Arlo]
> I agree with Pirsig on this, following the path of Bo and Platt 
> lowers the quality of the MOQ. Pirsig got that one right.

[Platt]
I agree with Pirsig that "It was this intellectual level that was screwing 
everything up."  He got that right. He only proposed one intellectual level, 
the one that has people " . . . living in some kind of movie projected by this 
intellectual, electromechanical machine that had been created for their 
happiness, saying: PARADISE "> PARADISE   PARADISE >
but which had inadvertently shut them out from direct experience of life 
itself-and from each other." (Lila, 22) 

That's SOM reality, not Quality reality that is MOQ's essence. If  you can't 
see that, we've nothing to discuss.