[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Hi David T, 

On 14 Aug 2010 at 17:41, 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.

What is meaningless babble to you is meaningful interpretation to others. The 
number of people who agree or disagree with Bo is irrelevant to the validity of 
his views. Recall the "paintings in a gallery" analogy. 

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.

Bo can speak for himself but I don't recall his ever making a reference to a  
diagram in ZAMM. 

3. When asked for an opinion on the issue Pirsig very politely and
diplomatically indicated he saw little value in Bo's position.

True. But he also admitted the MOQ is an SOM document, necessary to "make 
itself known," thereby admitting SOM's dominance at the intellectual 
(cognitive) level. Also, Pirsig indicated very little value in extending the 
social level to include animals. "One can also call ants and bees "social" 
insects, but for purposes of precision in the MOQ social patterns should be 
defined as human and subjective." (LS, No. 49)   

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.

Again, whether the diagram in ZAMM is faulty or not seems immaterial to the SOL 
interpretation. Verbal selections from ZAMM have been cited to support Pirsig's 
assault on the "Church of Reason," i.e., the intellectual level.  

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?

Art, music, poetry, etc. are classified by Pirsig as "high quality endeavors" 
that can apply to both social and intellectual levels. Remember that the MOQ 
has high regard for SOM. "This may sound as though a purpose of the Metaphysics 
of Quality is to trash all subject-object thought but that's not true. Unlike 
subject-object metaphysics the Metaphysics of Quality does not insist on a 
single exclusive truth." (Lila, 8) Also, keep this quote in mind when some here 
argue that what Pirsig says should be taken as an "exclusive truth."  

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.

Don't you think you should support this assertion with evidence? Do you know 
any "trained professional logicians?" 

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.

I don't see Bo's views as being any more of a "frantic effort" that those who 
try to trash them. 

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

Yes, and so could Pirsig. So could anybody. I think that's a given, but it 
doesn't hurt to admit it once in awhile. None of us has a monopoly on "the 
truth" much less a "one right way to think." On that I'm sure we would all 
agree, not that that alone would make it valid. :-)

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss these issue, David.  

Regards,
Platt