[MD] Thus spoke Lila

[Platt Holden]

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:22 AM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On 07/12/2010 15:13, Platt Holden wrote:
> >
> >> Pirsig
> >>  "As far as I know the MOQ does not trash SOM. It contains the SOM
> within
> >> a
> >> larger system."
> >>
> >
> [Platt]
>
> Again Pirsig:
>
> "You can't have box 'A' (the MOQ) contain within itself box 'B'
> (intellectual level) which in turn contains box 'A.' (the MOQ). That's
> whacko.  (Parens added.)
>
> Bo's SOL is right.
>
> Ron:
> First off, in this context those two quotes contradict each other.
>
> Following what he said:
> "SOM is embedded in a larger system"
> But then he says:
> "You can't have box A (MoQ) contain within itself box B (SOM)"
>
> especially if SOM is the intellectual level.
>
> By Bo's interpretation:
>
>
> "You can't have box 'A' (the MOQ[Reality]) contain within itself box 'B'
> (intellectual level[SOM]) which in turn contains box 'A.' (the
> MOQ[Reality).
> That's
> whacko.  (Parens added.)
>
> By Bo's own interpretation he also violates the "container logic"
> and things dont quite add up.
>
> But you see if we follow what Pirsigs states in the first quote above,
> about how SOM being embedded in a larger system, it makes no
> sense in the light of Bo's interpretation or the point you are trying
> to make.
>
> You guys can never explain yourselves past interpretations of
> Pirsig quotes which always conflict with eachother once examined.
>
> Meaning is usually derrived from consistancy and SOL lacks
> consistancy in interpretation.
>
> I understand that reality is whatever you want it to be
> and in your reality Bo is right, for no other reason than
> you want him to be right.
>
> lets just be honost
>
> Try explaining it without Pirsig quotes
> Try using your own reasons


Platt
The "larger system" equals "Box A" in the Pirsig quotes. No contradiction.

Without Pirsig quotes the explanation is simple: -- An eye cannot directly
see itself. .

>
>