[MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy.

[Ham Priday]

Hi Platt --.



> With all due respect, my cat, UTOE, exhibits the ability to make
> his experience comprehensible to him (the subject) by responding
> accordingly, like when he watches me go to the cupboard to get
> his food.  But I dare say he lacks intellect as we commonly define
> the word. So I would have to agree that what separates me from
> my cat (assuming you grant me an intellect) is my ability to symbolize
> my experience, although in some respects UTOE is no doubt
> smarter than me, especially when it comes to free-loading.

I can't speak for UTOE, nor can UTOE speak for himself.  However, his 
association of the cupboard with catfood may be a rudimentary step in 
intellection.  After all, a logical proposition (syllogism) is nothing more 
than associating two or more premises to form a logical conclusion.  My 
point to Bo was that a concept is an idea realized by the subject.  Words or 
equations are needed to convey the idea to others, but they're only symbolic 
representations of the subject's realization.

And, speaking of concepts, doesn't it concern you that words pertaining to 
intellection -- such as awareness, cognition, consciousness, 
conceptualization, and realization -- are virtually absent in Pirsig's 
writings?  Do you suppose this is because he doesn't believe in subjects, or 
because he doesn't want US to?

> Bo has defined intellect properly as the value of the subject/object
> division, a value you rigorously support. But from an MOQ perspective,
> what is more fundamental than the S/O division is the value.

True.  Which is why I'm still talking to Bo, despite our "intellectual" 
differences.

> Anyway, intellect has brought us such marvels as the Reid/Pelosi stimulus
> (stealfromus) bill, proving Ben Franklin's observation: "So convenient it
> is to be a rational creature, since it enables us to find or make a reason
> for everything one has a mind to do."

We are in complete agreement there.  We don't need "conspiracy theories" 
when the strategy is so factually evident.  After promising "transparency" 
and "non-partisan politics" our new President has rammed through Congress 
the largest spending bill in U.S. history, concealing details from the 
public and refusing to consider alternative measures.  Less than a third of 
the $720 billion will provide tax credits to private businesses, the 
legitimate source of jobs and investment, while the rest is a New Deal 
spending package designed to benefit illegal immigrants and the unemployable 
that will do nothing to stimulate the economy.

As Rahm Emmanuel said last November, "Never let a crisis go to waste."  One 
would have hoped that the Anointed One, who has been heralded as "the most 
intelligent president ever to assume office", would have the sense to 
realize that you can't cure a deficit crisis by spending money you don't 
have.  Among future steps, already underway, will be pushing for the 
"Fairness Doctrine" and making U.S. Census redistricting subject to White 
House approval, instead of the Commerce Dept., thereby ensuring a Democrat 
victory in the next election.  You and I know what "change" our new leader 
has in mind for the Obamanation.  What troubles me is that no one seems to 
care.

Anyway, great to hear from you, Platt.

Regards,
Ham