[MD] Consciousness a la Platt

[Heather Perella]

Bo:
> I knew the "conceited" part would evoke
> reactions, but does 
> people boast of being conceited? For the rest we don't
> live in North 
> Korea where person worshipping is the highest good, Pirsig
> surely 
> is the one who likes (perhaps he looks into the discussion)
> the 
> MOQ to be put under scrutiny, while he guaranteed dislikes
> your 
> forays into all kind of silly issues ... backed by Marsha. 

SA:  Now Platt, here's a lesson in ad hominem attacks.  Notice Bo didn't give one piece of intellectual value to his prose here.  He only states I go "into all kind of silly issues", and here's a lesson into dragging somebody into a discussion too.  He brings up Marsha.  Marsha has nothing to do with this recent discussion between you (Platt) and I.  Of course, I expect this from Bo, since he doesn't know how to argue intellectually outside of his repeated playbook.  That's what troubles you Bo.  You like essentialism and absolutism, so, any thoughts that spring from your SOL seem to confuse you and you have never been able to argue against them directly.  Your like the politicians confronted with the female in "The Girl in the Cafe".  It's a true show of static quality confronted with dynamic quality.

SA previously:
> > I'd say Bo is kicking everybody out of
> > what he claims to be the "true moq" (his
> words again) and he's waiting
> > for a "thinker" (he's words again). 
> Somethings a bit off-course here.
> >  You say "interpret".  I say Bo is going as
> far as totally rearranging
> > and redefining the whole of the moq, not just an
> interpretation of
> > details, but the whole shabang, he promotes the very
> event (SOM) that
> > the moq is against. 

Bo: 
> I know its futile to discuss philosophy with you,

SA:   Maybe if you actually tried to, you might learn something.

Bo:
> but for instance Pirsig's way of "encasing" SOM as expressed
> in Lila's Child In the MOQ, all organisms are objective. They exist in
> the material world. All societies are subjective. They
> exist in the mental world. Again, the distinction is very sharp.
> For example, the president of the United States is a social
> pattern. No objective scientific instrument can
> distinguish a President of the US from anyone else.. 
> I said that had he said "Seen from SOM organisms are
> objective 
> and societies are subjective" it would have been
> correct, but as 
> you see he says "In the MOQ ...etc. and this in a
> metaphysics that 
> has forsworn the S/O distinction!!!.

SA:  Ok.  I agree with this Bo.  If... if this is what Pirsig meant, then I agree with you Bo.  As I've stated many, many times in the past, the only quarrel with your philosophy I have and it is a big quarrel, is your insistence that the intellectual level is ONLY S/O.  By doing that, you define everything intellectually with S/O.  Even quality is defined intellectually by S/O when you make this move of yours.

Bo:
> Still, in any case this way of 
> subsuming SOM is cumbersome, even the staunchest somist 
> would protest that "life" is objective or that a
> society is "subjective". 
> No, the only way that puts the S/O genie safely back in a
> bottle is 
> as the static intellectual level. 

SA:  You see, where you think or whatever you do when you make this move of putting the S/O genie in a bottle (cause I know as soon as I say "think" you might forget everything else I say and get hitched into espouses that "think" is SOM and enough! and so on...  So, since I know you'll say this, don't get caught up in repeating it please.  I'll only have to respond to it again so I'm responding now instead), so, back to this S/O genie.  You put this genie in a the intellectual level, and then state nothing else intellectual can be on this level, and that's what I've always disagreed with for as I state above, when you do this you only intellectualize with S/O, thus, you only intellectualize S/O when you intellectualize about anything including quality.  That would be the logical conclusion. 


SA: 
> >  Moq wouldn't even be around if something kin or
> interpreted similar to
> > the moq was around counter to SOM.  But Pirsig and
> others back to the
> > sophists were counter to SOM and each came up with
> their philosophy to
> > show their reasons.  

Bo: 
> Please will someone translate this!

SA:  Sorry.  After I sent this and reread the post, this does come across fuzzy.  What I simply meant was if all this time people intellectualized using S/O and along comes the moq, well, the moq does and intellectualizes something different, I mean why else would Pirsig need to come up with the moq.  He wasn't satisfied with S/O intellectual patterns, so, he came up with a metaphysics that can be intellectualized differently, not exclusively S/O.  
     

SA