[MD] What is SOM?

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Platt]
Another words, "Oops."

[Arlo]
You mean, "Aha!". And that is far better than the only thing you offer, "Poof".

I've addressed some questions to Ham that he has been wholly unable to answer
in any way. I ask you now the same initial question.

First, I assume you'd agree that at some point in the far, far distant past,
some pre-pre-primate of man lacked the sophistication in
consciousness/awareness that "man" possesses. If you disagree here, let me know.

If we accept the above premise, then something had to change, some event or
something that occurred, some change in something, that can account for the
appearance of something where it did not exist before. No?

I've been vocal about my view on social participation (an unintended
consequence of neurological evolution) being this "change". Physiologists may
point to simply the neurobiological changes in themselves that account for the
appearance of human consciousness. Both of these views you characterize (slyly)
as "oops". I've argued that these are not "oops" but "aha's!", moments where
Quality latched onto the unexpected formations that appeared due to genetic
changes.

So I ask you, Platt, "what changed?" You disavow both physiological and
sociological theories. I know that. So what do you offer instead? The only
thing I could glean from Ham's responses is a sort of Divine Intervention, a
great "Abracadabra!" or "Poof!" where "on high" (Ham's words) suddenly poofed
consciousness into existence. 

What do you offer instead of these? Although you run from the word, the only
thing you have ever offered in the past is "Great Poof" a la Ham of some
"Qualigod". Now tell me, if not "oops" or "aha!" or "poof", then what? 

[Platt]
As for finger pointing, Pirsig clearly begins with Quality and points in many
directions, including the teleological view of evolution.

[Arlo]
He also says the MOQ embraces non-teleological views of evolution. Since the
MOQ can embrace both teleological and anti-teleological views, that would seem
to make the value of "teleogi-ness" culturally relative, or maybe even
individually relative. Meaning neither are correct, it "just whatever you want
to think". If not, how?