[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[Platt Holden]

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 6:09 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> Arlo said:
> 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. I agree with Pirsig on
> this, following the path of Bo and Platt lowers the quality of the MOQ.
> Pirsig got that one right.
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> I agree. The idea doesn't even work in general, regardless of its impact on
> the MOQ. SOM is just one particular set of ideas. How does it make sense to
> equate that with all ideas. The Ford Pinto is a car but it would be
> ridiculous to assert that Pintos are one and the same as all cars. The dog
> is not one and the same as all life forms and gold is not equal to all the
> elements. It's just a silly idea. Period.
>
> Can we please move on? This whole debate is a total waste of time and
> energy. It's keyboard abuse.
>

[Platt]
SOM is the metaphysical premise that reality is subjects and objects. By
comparing a subjective premise with an objective car, a dog and gold, your
allegiance to SOM is revealed as cast in cement, resulting in the above
keyboard foolishness.


>