[MD] Science and the MOQ

[Platt Holden]

> [Arlo had said]
> Indeed, Pirsig says "subjects are social and intellectual values". 
> Read that again. It says EXACTLY what I said.
> 
> [Platt]
> Read this again about the individual. (Pirsig says "individual," not 
> "subjects.")
> 
> [Arlo]
> And again, you seem to think that the quote your provide denies the 
> quote I provide. They don't. I support both quotes. Sadly, you have 
> to rely on distorted rhetoric to use one quote to deny another.

That you support both quotes is the laugh of the century.
 
> I've already provided ample proof, and several key quotes, from 
> Pirsig demonstrating that the "self" of the MOQ is "social" and
> "proprietary".
> 
> [Platt]
> So much for the value of your leftist agenda.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Its this kind of moronic bunk that is embarrassing. But if you mean 
> "supporting big government programs", again I remind you that Pirsig 
> is an avowed "lifelong democrat".

Read what he said in the ZMM quote. What's really embarrassing is your 
denial of the obvious.  

> [Platt]
> None of your quotes deny the distinction between the individual and 
> "big programs of social planning."
> 
> [Arlo]
> Who's talking about that? I am talking about the collectivist origins 
> of mind. The "self" in the MOQ as a point of contact between social 
> assimilation and unique bounded experience. Just like Pirsig says...

"Collectivist origin of the mind" -- thanks for proving my point!

> "The Metaphysics of Quality resolves the relationship between 
> intellect and society, subject and object, mind and matter, by 
> embedding all of them in a larger system of understanding. Objects 
> are inorganic and biological values; subjects are social and 
> intellectual values."

And the individual is all four, a fact you always overlook in pushing your 
collectivist agenda.

> [Platt]
> Nonsense. Your quotes are irrelevant to the fundamental conflict in the MOQ.
> 
> [Arlo]
> No, they are irrelevant to YOUR fundamental conflict in the MOQ. They 
> are relevant to anyone truly interested in more than using the MOQ as 
> an apologist doctrine to wage some moronic war against "collectivism".

No. They are relevant only to your using the MOQ as an apologist doctrine 
to wage war against individualism 

> [Platt]
> Ham made the mistake of relying on your one-sided interpretation of the MOQ.
> 
> [Arlo]
> No. Ham denies 1/2 of Pirsig. You deny the other 1/2. You both have 
> the "one-sided" interpretations. Its actually funny to watch. But 
> sad, since you are both so stuck in "proving" something you miss an 
> opportunity for true expansion of thought. What's even more funny is 
> how you use one quote of Pirsig's to "deny" another quote. I've never 
> actually seen anyone do this before, for any author. It's astonishing.

What's truly hilarious and sad is your ignoring any quote that opposes your 
one-sided interpretation of the MOQ. 

> [Platt]
> If Descartes had said, "I am because I can respond to DQ" he would 
> have been correct.
> 
> [Arlo]
> At least here you finally break with Pirsig outright. ""If Descartes 
> had said, "The seventeenth century French culture exists, therefore I 
> think, therefore I am," he would have been correct."(LILA)

No break at all. Simply adding a unique Pirsigian concept. 

> [Platt]
> The individual "owes" her existence to many things, primarily a 
> biological pattern. Culture obviously has an influence on the 
> individual's development, but has little effect on her creative, 
> Dynamic responses.
> 
> [Arlo]
> "Our intellectual description of nature is always culturally 
> derived." The "self" that is able to respond to DQ on the 
> intellectual level, as we know from Pirsig the "self" is an 
> intellectual pattern, is able to do so only through the assimilation 
> of a collective consciousness. Without that, your "individual" would 
> be forever stuck responding to DQ on only the biological and inorganic
> levels.
> 
> As to your little Cartesian "me", Pirsig is quite clear. "This 
> Cartesian "Me," this autonomous little homunculus who sits behind our 
> eyeballs looking out through them in order to pass judgment on the 
> affairs of the world, is just completely ridiculous. This 
> self-appointed little editor of reality is just an impossible fiction 
> that collapses the moment one examines it." (LILA)

As I keep reminding you, culture influences the individual, but is not the 
whole individual by a long shot, and your reference to the Cartesian me is 
just another of your laughable red herrings.