[MD] subject / object logic

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Ian]
Platt - intellectual cop out - 'nuff said.

[Arlo]
Intellectual cop out?!?! You really want me to 
wade through his latest barrage of moronic 
distortions? Fine. But I don't know what more I 
can add to the fundamental dialogue that I've 
already said, or that Dan has recently so eloquently and succinctly posted.

Let's start with this.

[Arlo had said]
Of course "intellectual patterns" are atop 
Pirsig's hierarchy of static patterns. But what I 
see as the real value to Quality is in its final 
dissolution of the "self" and "thing" into a moment of "grooving".

[Platt responded]
An alcoholic blackout or drug-induced trip is nirvana? Give me a break.

[Arlo]
You wanna tell me where you've pulled idiotic 
distortion from? Certainly not in anything I've 
said. If its the word "grooving", its the word 
Pirsig himself uses to describe the dissolution 
of "self" and "object", the overcoming of the 
illusion of separateness. As I said when I provided the following quote.

"Phædrus felt that at the moment of pure Quality 
perception, or not even perception, at the moment 
of pure Quality, there is no subject and there is 
no object. There is only a sense of Quality that 
produces a later awareness of subjects and 
objects. At the moment of pure quality, subject 
and object are identical. This is the tat tvam 
asi truth of the Upanishads, but it's also 
reflected in modern street argot. "Getting with 
it," "digging it," "grooving on it" are all slang 
reflections of this identity." (Pirsig)

[Platt responded at first]
Source?

[Arlo]
ZMM. You have the online version. I'm sure you can find it easily.

[Platt continued]
Remember what Pirsig had to say about "modern" 
flower children --blowing their minds, destroying 
their ability to reason. Not an attractive scene 
in the "pragmatic" world of Penn State.

[Arlo]
Just another rhetoric distortive tactic. "Flower 
children"? I'm talking about what Pirsig calls 
"the tat tvam asi truth of the Upanishads", the 
dissolution of the "self" and the "object" in the moment of pure Quality.

[Platt]
So are they real or not? A yes or no will suffice.

[Arlo]
I could easily defer to both Dan's and Ant's 
recent posts capturing the MOQ perspective on 
"real versus illusion". But as I've said, they 
have real pragmatic value. The things we 
experience are "real" only insofar as our 
value-interaction with them. The "self" is like 
this too. I had provided quotes by Einstein and 
Pirsig capturing this sentiment.

[Platt]
Dreams contain no evidence of existence except to 
the dreamer. Memories of the past can be verified by tangible evidence.

[Arlo]
How would I verify the memories of your daughter? 
I could verify she existed, yes, but how could I 
verify she was a beautiful person? What "tangible 
evidence" exists that captures your memories of 
catching your first fly-ball? Are these things "illusions"?

Not to mention that people often have very 
different memories of the same experience. Which 
one is the "real" memory, and which is 
"illusion"? Are they both "real" simply because 
the holder "believes them to be real"?

This is why, as I've said upteen times, "real" 
and "illusion" are simply contextual descriptors 
that depend on where you are coming from. The 
"self" is, thus, an illusion philosophically, and 
real pragmatically. There is no contradiciton there at all.

[Platt]
So long as the "self" has a unique DNA and 
fingerprint unlike any other self, it will be 
considered real, not an illusion, by those who 
can tell the difference between what's real and what's not.

[Arlo]
Are you saying the "self" is the biological body? 
Is "Arlo" the body I see when I look in the mirror?

[Arlo had said]
And we can move on pragmatically making use of 
the tools we have, but we have to, in the final 
analysis, recognize that are just that... "tools".

[Platt]
Yes, real tools -- not illusory.

[Arlo]
Real only by virtue of their pragmatic value, not 
because of some existential being apart from this 
value. That existential being that we think is apart is the illusion.

[Platt]
I'm not surprised that you view the modern notion 
of freedom and property ownership with pronounced indifference.

[Arlo]
Because they are unrelated. Indeed, from many 
perspectives "property" limits freedom. When 
everything is private property, I am hardly 
"free" to go where I want. When you own that 
lake, I can't swim in it freely any longer. As I 
said the last dozen times we had this 
conversation, we forgo this freedom willingly out 
of hopes that we, too, can secure the power to 
prohibit others.  The modern association of 
"freedom" with "property" is born out of the 
capistocratic and materialist culture that 
emerged from the Industrial Revolution.

[Platt]
Also, remember that Pirsig didn't think Indians 
could survive very long in the modern world. I 
hope you are not recommending a return to buffalo 
hunting, scalping and rain dancing.

[Arlo]
I side with Pirsig's critique of modern culture.

[Platt]
Yes, "rational understanding," not nonsensical 
dreaming or loony illusions. The MOQ is nothing 
if not down to earth and relative to everyday living.

[Arlo]
Rational understanding built around a mystic and 
undefinable core. The MOQ is nothing without that 
central core, worse, it'd be just another in a 
string of S/O rationalist philosophies that keep 
"man" forever apart from "the world".

[Platt]
At last, agreement. Not a Buddhist philosophy.

[Arlo]
No, the MOQ is a Buddhist philosophy. But it is 
not Buddhism. And the MOQ is a postmodern 
philosophy. But it is not Postmodernism.

[Platt]
I'll pass. I only reply when you throw 
some of your Marxist crap and moveon.org 
character assassination into an otherwise reasonable discussion.

[Arlo]
And on to the moronic "moveon.org" bullshit. Yes, 
over the past few weeks, O'Reilly and Hannity 
have so stepped up their Wurlitzer of "tactics of 
moveon.org" that my count of an hour of the 
Hannity program yesterday found 14 times between 
5 and 6 (when it airs here), and on O'Reilly 
yesterday 11 times in the half-hour period of 
12:30-1. So it is no surprise to me that suddenly 
you start squalking this here. Sad.

But beyond this insipid parroting of talk-radio 
bunk, I find it very ironic that the same 
sentence that seemingly condemns "character 
assassination" uses the rhetorical trick of 
association to try to equate ME with THEM. Talk about hypocrisy.

Beyond this, as I've said more times than I can 
count, "character assassination" is a feature of 
BOTH modern political parties. To attempt to make 
it seem like "libs do it" but "conservatives 
don't" is simply more moronic propaganda. The ad 
against General Petraus was appalling, but so is 
the ongoing smear of the right wing loonies 
against anyone who dares challenge conservatism. 
Most appalling is the "libs hate America, side 
with the enemy and want to see American soldiers 
killed". This is the sort of stuff that we should 
be ashamed by across the board. But by pandering 
to the moronic notion that "its just them libs" 
is the kind of vile, moronic propaganda that is contempible in this forum.

So let me then go on to the next vile and moronic statement.

[Arlo had said]
Take another crack at your typical distortions 
and  moronic statement like "libs hate freedom". The floor is all yours.

[Platt]
I thought you were in favor of universal health care.

[Arlo]
The implication here is that by supporting 
universal health care I "hate freedom". The 
rational is that by supporting a government 
program, I hate freedom. But wait! Do I "hate 
freedom" because I support the public park 
system? Do I "hate freedom" because I support 
public roads and waterways? Do I "hate freedom" 
because I support public libraries and museums? 
Do I "hate freedom" because I support taxation to 
fund a socialized military? A socialized police 
force? A socialized judiciary? A socialized mint 
and treasury? Am I "anti-freedom" because I 
support public firefighters? Am I "anti-freedom" 
because I support a socialized immigration 
bureau? The FBI? CIA? Do I "hate freedom" because I support NASA??

Here is the bottom line. We all have ideas about 
what role the government should play, and what 
programs it should fund. But to paint someone 
else as being "anti-freedom"  for supporting one 
program you don't, while supporting so many 
yourself, is, again, simply moronic talk-radio propaganda.

I also find it funny that "Mr. Freedom" actively 
wants to ban my freedom to use the pipes on my 
motorcycle as I see fit. I could, I suppose, use 
his same tactics and accuse him of being 
"anti-freedom", but I recognize that the issue of 
social freedom and the issue of social order are 
intrinsically tied. Unless Platt is proposing 
absolute anarchy, one is forced to restrict the 
freedoms of some for the good of the many. And 
once again that just belies his underlying hypocrisy and empty rhetoric.