[MD] Virulent reality.

[skutvik at online.no]

Arlo and Joe

On 11 Sep. Arlo Bensinger wrote:

> [Joe]
> There are three posts I have recently read that confuse 
> me.  One by Ron composed of just symbols.  A lot by Arlo: "No more and
> no less a role that any of the multiplicity"..

> [Arlo]
> This slipped past me, Joe, until Bo's post where he (go figure) 
> paints someone who disagrees with him as "feeble". I'll try to 
> explain more clearly what I mean.
 
Not to meddle, but because "myself" is involved I feel free to comment. 
First of all it's intellect that has "problems" with the IDEA of a self. At 
the social level (when it was leading edge) people surely had names 
but never for a moment reflected on a hypothetical self and its validity. 
PS. The software/hardware distinction is intellect's latest S/O.

LILA's pointing to the problems that the S/O-pattern creates (that 
allegedly has invaded intellect) is uncalled for. In ZAMM where 
Quality's only "level" was the subject/object distinction (rightfully called 
"intellect) it was crucial to point to the problems that this S/O-divide as 
metaphysics leads to, but in LILA ... as said.

But all problems it stems from an intellect invaded by the evil S/O 
instead of what it really is; the S/O distinction itself!! And further that 
the MOQ (as a better intellectual pattern) will reform intellect, 
something that makes for a MOQ with zero explanatory power, in 
addition to violating the container logic that  Pirsig uses. 

Do you see my point? This misconceived intellect prevents us from 
moving out of intellect to the MOQ proper. If the MOQ is an intellectual 
pattern then all static levels are "intellectual". You think that Descartes 
- thinking from intellect's S/O premises and thereby creating the self 
paradox -  is something the MOQ INTELLECTUALLY will explain and 
that you from a MOQ standpoint can flaunt all this multiple self 
nonsense, but the MOQ does not solve intellect's paradoxes (in this 
case the "self" one) it dissolves it by making the former SOM into its 
own static intellectual level, valid to a certain point, but beyond that it 
ends in frustration.   

Bo