[MD] Interpretative hypocrisy

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Hi Marsha,

Right. Another illustration of hypocrisy in condemning the SOL interpretation 
of the MOQ because Pirsig does not support "SOM-as intellect." Nor does he 
support an animals-included social level. Yet, that's OK. No need to separate 
that opinion out by putting it in a separate thread so as not to offend those 
who might disagree. 

Makes you wonder doesn't it?

Platt     



On 15 Aug 2010 at 3:43, MarshaV wrote:


Greetings Dave,

You criticize Bo's point-of-view, yet from your other post you talk about 
human animals and the evolution.  The MoQ is not about human 
animals, but static patterns of value, and the evolution that the MoQ 
references is the evolution of static patterns of value..


Marsha  




On Aug 14, 2010, at 6:41 PM, David Thomas wrote:

> 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