[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[MarshaV]

Greetings Platt,

This is a clear rebuttal to all Dave's complaints.  Great post!   


Marsha   
 



On Aug 15, 2010, at 11:19 AM, plattholden at gmail.com wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html


 
___