[MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Guess you need to be hit over the head with more quotes to get the 
point. Here's another:

"This city is another pattern left behind by the creative force." (Lila,17)

In the meantime, you blather on about your "entirety" opinion without 
offering any relevant evidence from the MOQ itself. Don't you ever get 
bored saying the same thing over and over? 

But if you want to twist the MOQ into your preconceived pseudoscientific 
faith in pantheism, far be it for me or Pirsig to persuade you otherwise. 
Next you'll be trying to convince me (as some others have) that from the 
"tenor" of Pirsig's text he really didn't mean to say that the free market is 
better than socialism. 

As for a dialogue, with you there's no such thing. You simply take what I 
and Pirsig say and contort or obfuscate it into such "lead balloons" as 
"The world emerges out of responses to Quality, interwoven, inter-
related, interconnected responses ranging from the inorganic to the 
intellectual level," instead of saying clearly, simply and directly like 
Pirsig, "Dynamic Quality . . . creates the world in which we live." 

Anyway, you have this arrogant, condescending attitude like a professor 
towards a freshman which can only be described as offensive. I would 
think that one so supportive of political correctness and sensitivity would 
show a little respect to a fellow human being. But, alas, hypocrisy 
reigns.  



 14 Nov 2009 at 19:40, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:

> [Platt]
> And I'm saying the following quote (in addition to the one above you
> deliberately omitted, and the one before that in a previous post) accurately
> captures the meaning. 
> 
> [Arlo]
> How so? How does saying "Quality created the book LILA" capture the meaning of
> the MOQ? Where is freedom in that? Where is DQ? Where is Pirsig? 
> 
> This is what I said all along. If you say "Quality created carbon atoms", you
> complete destroy the meaning of the MOQ. It completely removed "choice" and
> free value preference, response to DQ, from the subatomic particles.
> 
> Did Quality create the book LILA, Platt? What was Pirsig's role? Do you
> honestly believe saying "Quality created the book LILA" is more in line with
> the MOQ than saying "the book LILA emerged out of Pirsig's responses to
> Quality"? 
> 
> What about your dinner last night, Platt? Did Quality create that? Or did you?
> The Mona Lisa? Did Quality create the Mona Lisa? Or was the Mona Lisa created
> by the artist out of a response TO Quality?
> 
> You say you consider the quote I've provided, please explain to me how?
> 
> "When inorganic patterns of reality create life the Metaphysics of Quality
> postulates that they've done so because it's "better" and that this definition
> of "betterness" -this beginning response to Dynamic Quality-is an elementary
> unit of ethics upon which all right and wrong can be based." (LILA)
> 
> This quote captures the freedom of the MOQ. How does the one you provided? This
> quote preserves the free value preferences inherent throughout the cosmos. How
> does the one your provided do this?
> 
> [Platt]
> You the other hand talk about what's in his heart and the tenor of his words,
> carefully avoiding what he says and/or completely misinterpreting what he says.
>  
> 
> [Arlo]
> I talk about the totality of his works, not just an acontextual quote here or
> there. And if you can show how I've "misinterpreted" anything, feel free. So
> far all you've done is hurl insults.
> 
> [Platt]
> Learn from you? God Lord man, are you really that arrogant?
> 
> [Arlo]
> Who is being arrogant here? You're right, Platt, me just stoopid. You can't
> learn anything from me. I be dumb. 
> 
> [Platt]
> And I say it's sad to see you appropriate the language of the MOQ but pour the
> words onto a pseudoscientific pantheistic revision. 
> 
> [Arlo]
> Except I've backed up my argument. You've done nothing but insult. 
> 
> Are you saying that "freedom" is "pseudoscientific pantheistic revision".
> Because that's all I've been talking about. 
> 
> DQ  = unexpectedness. Are you arguing with that?
> 
> All patterns exercise free value preference in response to DQ. Are you arguing
> with that?
> 
> And from this free value preference we must see there is no "plan", for if
> there were, there would be no free value preference. Are you arguing with that?
> 
> [Platt]
> And I'm sorry you think I am in one of your classrooms where captive students
> are forced to swallow your "understandings."
> 
> [Arlo]
> More insults and pointless attacks on the academy. Its a shame, Platt.
> 
>