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

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 15 Nov 2009 at 21:17, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:

> [Platt]
> Done. Of course you won't accept the answers. You never do.
> 
> [Arlo]
> When  I get some, I'll see what I do. Since that has yet to happen, how do you
> know what I'll do when I get some?
> 
> [Platt]
> Nothing to be gained from further exchanges.  
> 
> [Arlo]
> At first I felt sad reading this, you really could have learned something here.
> Then I got to the following.
> 
> [Arlo had asked]
> 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? 

> 
> [Platt]
> There is no distinction other than the subject. 
> 
> [Arlo]
> Yep, what I've been saying, and you've been denying, all along. Theism. Thanks.

Except Bo "creates" paintings and my cat "creates" footprints in the 
sand. You asked for difference in the meaning of "creates. There is 
none. If every case "creates" means "bring into existence." Nice try, 
though.    

> 
> So I guess there really is nowhere to go. 
> 
> [Arlo had also asked]
> So Pirsig did not create the MOQ?
> 
> [Platt replied]
> The answer is, "What created Pirsig?" .
> 
> [Arlo]
> I thought you may be striving for a Koan here, but this is pretty bad. I get
> it. You can't say "Pirsig created the MOQ" right after saying "Quality created
> the MOQ", but you can't bring yourself to say "Pirsig did not create the MOQ"
> either. So you evade. Sad.

Word games. 

> The answer is, and its an easy one, that Quality did not create the MOQ. Pirsig
> did. Pirsig created the MOQ out of the free value responses in his life to
> Quality. Quality does not "create", Quality simply "is". Creation always occurs
> as a response TO Quality. That is "freedom".
> 
> I could take this further. Did Quality create radical Islam? Did Quality create
> communism? Once you start positing a "Quality" that "creates", you not only
> eliminate freedom, you eliminate any meaningful use of the term; other than as
> a "god".
> 
> [Arlo had also asked]
> Was there ever a "chance" the Mona Lisa may NOT have been painted? You may want
> to really think about that before answering.
> 
> [Platt]
> 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?
> 
> [Arlo]
> I knew you'd evade this one as well. I figured you'd ignore it outright, but
> since you didn't, I hope you can see that the answer is "yes", there WAS a
> "chance" that the Mona Lisa may not have been painted. If there was never this
> "chance" for it NOT to happen, then there is NO freedom in the cosmos.
> 
> And if there WAS a "chance" it may not have happened, then there is also the
> "chance" WE might not have happened. And that, Platt, puts us here by "chance".

Yes, we all know that's your faith -- "Oops, life's a crap shoot" Or, as 
Pirsig described your faith: "Each individual in his cell of isolation was 
told that no matter how hard he tried, no matter how hard he worked, his 
whole life is that of an animal that lives and thinks like any other 
animal." (Lila,, 22) Yes, we're just a herd of humanity at the mercy of 
blind fate. Sad.  

Yes, nowhere to go.