[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[David Thomas]

Hi Platt,

> and not to other criticisms of Pirsig's positions, like the social level
> not being limited to humans.

Since I'm the purveyor of this travesty I would like to know, "Have you
honestly looked at and thought deeply about the issues I've raised?" Since
they have only occur to me just in the past few weeks after 15 years of
contemplation, I must say that I admire the awesome speed and power of your
intellect to discount the possibilities almost immediately. Wait, I forgot,
if you have a fixed position that's not so difficult at all. Nevermind!

The problems with Bo's position are:

1. It has been discussed ad nauseam for 15 years and has oblivious logical
problems to which Bo responds with his smelly sock metaphor. This is
meaningless babble to almost everybody else, and I sometimes think, even to
him.
2. His position is based on the Romantic/Classic split and diagram in ZaMM
which Pirsig rejected early in Lila as one of a series of bad openings he
tried and since abandoned.
3. When asked for an opinion on the issue Pirsig very politely and
diplomatically indicated he saw little value in Bo's position.
4. Pirsig to some extent helped in the confusion. Classic is synonymous with
SOM (classic philosophy out of Aristotle). If that is so, the next box down
should not be "intellectual" but at least two boxes labeled "idealism" and
"realism" or some such classifications to show the broad range of classic
positions. No intellectual box, no simple minded direct transfer.
5.Bo's translation of R/C diagram into the MoQ is wrong headed at best and
just plain silly at worst. His translation places all romantic qualities on
the social level. Romantics maybe all about art, music, poetry, etc, but my
guess is that none would claim that they never use or do not have
intellects. Or that they are, and should be excluded from being
intellectuals. Shouldn't they just be sociable, happy, and keep dabbling in
that lower level DQ?
6. If a trained profession logician were to diagram Bo's position (if
somehow he could understand it) it would yield so many logic errors
rendering it false, that the number infinity comes to mind.
7. In his frantic effort to shore up or defend his position over the last 15
years he has rejected so much of Pirsig's MoQ that if his theory were to be
true only thing that would be left is the many acronyms of his position.

But as you say Platt, I could be wrong. But so could Bo. He's just not
willing to consider that possibility.

Dave