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

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 15 Nov 2009 at 17:51, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:

> [Platt]
> As usual, you're.wrong. There's nothing theistic about Quality. 
> 
> [Arlo]
> I never said there was. But at least you admit that there is nothing theistic
> about Quality. That's a good step.

You said I thought there was. That's an evasion.  

> [Arlo asked]
> Did "Quality create the MOQ"?
> 
> [Platt]
> Yes. 
> 
> [Arlo]
> So Pirsig did not create the MOQ?
> 
> [Platt]
> What created Pirsig?
> 
> [Arlo]
> His biological patterns are the result of genetic reproduction on the part of
> his parents. His "self" emerges as that biological pattern appropriated the
> socio-intellectual symbolic lexicon of his culture.

What created his parents?

> Now answer my question (that you evaded). So Pirsig did not create the MOQ?

The answer is, "What created Pirsig?" . 

> [Arlo asked]
> Did "Quality create the Mona Lisa"?
> 
> [Platt]
> Yes. 
> 
> [Arlo asked]
> What role did the artist play? 
> 
> [Platt]
> What created the artist? 
> 
> [Arlo]
> Same as above. Now I answered you. You try answering me.  What role did the
> artist of the Mona Lisa play, if Quality created that painting? 

What created the parents of the artist? Same answer as above. 

> Now here's a key. Was there ever a "chance" the Mona Lisa may NOT have been
> painted? You may want to really think about that before answering.

You're asking what might have been? Or what might be? If I knew that I 
wouldn't be wasting time answering stupid questions would I? If you're 
asking if I know how DQ is going to affect the future, the answer is "No."   
How DQ influenced the past is history, explained in Chapter 11 of Lila in 
case you want to read it sometime. . 

[Arlo]
> Do you really think saying "Quality created the MOQ" is better than saying "the
> MOQ emerged from Pirsig's free value responses to DQ"?
> 
> [Platt]
> Yes. 
> 
> [Arlo]
> What does the former convey the latter does not? 

It identifies the creative source. 

> Here's one I doubt you'll even attempt, but what the heck. Explain to me the
> difference in what "create" means in these sentances.
> 
> God created the MOQ.
> 
> Quality created the MOQ.
> 
> Explain to me the distinction between the two "creates". What does "create"
> mean in both cases? If they are different, why use the exact same terminology? 

There is no distinction other than the subject. Is that your idea of a 
intelligent question?

> I've also already answered why I think the latter is better, it preserves the
> MOQ meaning regarding the free response to value, rather that implying an
> external, orchestrating agent. Now you tell me why the former is "better".
> 
> Quality does not "create", it provides the ground in which creation occurs.
> 
> Quality does not "create", creation occurs as patterns respond to Quality.
> 
> The MOQ is AHA! It is about the unexpected Good in response to DQ being
> preserved into habituated patterns of response (SQ).
> 
> [Platt]
> So answer my questions, Arlo, simply and directly if you can.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Done. Now you answer mine.

Done. Of course you won't accept the answers. You never do. So I 
wonder why I bother. In fact it's time to end this. Nothing to be gained 
from further exchanges.