[MD] What is SOM?

[Platt Holden]

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

No, I mean, "Oops."

> 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.

Why do you ask these questions?
 
> 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?