[MD] The strong interpretation of the MOQ (SIM)

[X Acto]

----- Original Message ----
From: Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Mon, July 12, 2010 9:29:14 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] The strong interpretation of the MOQ (SIM)

Hi Arlo (Ron also mentioned)

On 12/07/2010 22:25, Arlo Bensinger wrote:
> [Arlo repeats]
> Why is the following such a seemingly alien concept for you, Platt and Bo?
> 
> (1) Bo's formulation for a metaphysics is a critical revision of Pirsig's 
>metaphysics.
> 
> (2) Bo might say "A metaphysics of Quality that holds the intellectual level to 
>SOM is better than A metaphysics of Quality that considers SOM to be one on many 
>intellectual patterns", instead of "THE metaphysics of Quality holds the 
>intellectual level to SOM".
> 
> Why are you all so obsessively hung up on the word "THE", and what value do you 
>think it has?
> 
> Do you disagree with me that we use the phrase "THE metaphysics of Quality" as 
>a conventional way of referring specifically to Pirsig's ideas, but that it 
>would in fact be more accurate to say "Pirsig's metaphysics"?
> 
> Do you not see that obsessing on the "THE" objectifies the "MOQ" into some 
>"reality"... that even Pirsig can be "wrong" about? This makes no sense. Pirsig 
>can't be wrong about his ideas, but his ideas can be wrong. In the same way, 
>Bo's ideas are not "THE MOQ", they are his ideas.
> 
> If we drop the word "THE", and instead simply talk about people's ideas, do you 
>not see how all this interpretive nonsense and need for authoritative legitimacy 
>would disappear?
> 
> In other words, what do you think is wrong with saying "A metaphysics of 
>Quality that holds the intellectual level to SOM is better than A metaphysics of 
>Quality that considers SOM to be one on many intellectual patterns"?
> 
> Does that not sum up your position? Why is it more important for you to say 
>instead "THE metaphysics of Quality holds the intellectual level to SOM"? 
>

Horse:
You've asked some good questions here and I think that it is incumbent upon Bo 
and those that are defending his position to stop prevaricating and answer these 
questions. If they are unwilling or unable to engage in a dialogue which 
questions their position or will not make clarifications as to why there is a 
problem then maybe it's time to give up the pointless distractions and 
diversions and keep quiet.

So to Bo, Platt, Marsha and Mary if you are unwilling to engage in this 
conversation with Arlo then please state what your objections are as it seems 
entirely reasonable to me that in order to defend this SOL/SIM idea these 
questions would be as good a place as any to start.
Ron has also asked some good questions re:SOL/SIM so it would be good if he 
could repeat these questions so that the relevance of SOL/SIM to the MoQ can be 
examined.

In other word guys, it's time to either put up or shut up.

Ron:
Bodvar answered my question of "How does SOL provide greater explanitory power"
with that it "explained evil". Pointing out that since SOL does not expand 
rationality
this contradicted this claim. Not to mention justifying evil as morally 
superior.
I still have to ask, what good is it? what makes it better? how would it change 
existing values?