[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Arlo,

On Dec 14, 2008, at 10:09 AM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:

> [Arlo previously]
> The problem is that Platt claims (and to be fair, Pirsig suggests) 
> that nothing
> responds to DQ except for "man". Once again, I would then ask, if so 
> then
> "what" did respond to DQ before man? Give me an example of anything, 
> anything
> at all, that "responded to DQ" before man appears on the stage.
>
> If Platt had said "animals", then I would ask (and he knows this), 
> give me an
> example of how an animal may have responded to DQ in the past that it 
> can no
> longer do. Give me some evidence from history, anthropology, 
> archeology,
> whatever of an animal that did things in response to DQ, and what that 
> was, all
> things that animals today (in their non-DQness) can't do.
>
> I think you'll see how absurd that is revealed to be when you start 
> asking
> simple questions like these.
>

Steve:

I think what Pirsig said is that only a "living being" can respond to 
DQ. Inorganic patterns seem so static (is the speed of light 
changing?), yet the exact same set of preconditions never present 
themselves a second time, so I think I am agreeing with you when I say 
that dynamic and static quality should still be applied to explain 
preferences on the inorganic level while the balance is decidedly for 
the static.

The other comment I have is that I think the MOQ cosmology begins with 
radical empiricism rather than a big bang and evolution. Experience is 
Quality and divided into DQ/sq. The subject knows himself and has 
ideas. DQ/sq accepted as a postulate means that it is reasonable to 
think that the intellectual patterns of value have the subject as much 
as the subject has the ideas, for what is the self without thought? 
Evolution is an idea and as such it is an aesthetic creation of humans. 
When we read DQ/sq back on to evolution and to the responses to quality 
of animals and rocks and trees and even other people, we have less of 
an empirical basis for talking about such things. It is Pirsig's 
evolutionary theory. It is an idea that either holds up to rational 
discourse or not, while Experience = Quality and DQ/sq are axioms that 
are either found worth accepting or not.

Not sure if that is helpful or even coherent.

Regards,
Steve