[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 29 Jun 2010 at 13:22, Arlo Bensinger wrote:

> [Platt]
> .. but I do know that the forms of intellect Pirsig mentions require 
> definition, i.e., a subject ascribing meaning to an objective symbol, 
> and thus within SOM.
> 
> [Arlo]
> And with one fell swoop you demonstrate more profound ignorance than 
> I have seen in a days.
> 
> I'll repost my remediation, because you most certainly need it.

]Platt]
Like I need a hole in the head

> SOM = a specific metaphysical position that posits that subjects and 
> objects are the PRIMARY metaphysical distinction of "reality".
> 
> By your definition, since a dog can ascribe meaning to a ringing bell 
> it is "witihin SOM" (such horrible rhetoric too).

[Platt]
Such stupidity. As if a ringing bell is a symbol, and as if a dog knows a 
symbol from what it refers to.  
 
> Language, because it makes use of what we call "subjects" and 
> "objects", is not therefore "SOM". Language also makes use of verbs 
> of action and temporal markers, and we could just as easily say that 
> "definition" is "within ATM" (Active-Temporal Metaphysics).
> 
> It is this gross confusion between the conventional terms "subjects" 
> and "objects", and the position of positing that "subjects" and 
> "objects" are the primary metaphysical distinction of "reality", that 
> keeps me wondering exactly how it is that you can be part of a 
> philosophy discussion group for so long and yet remain so woefully 
> uninformed and ignorant, unless you are making every deliberate 
> attempt to remain so.

[Platt] 
Bonehead rhetoric.