[MD] Re Arlo

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 26 Jul 2010 at 18:57, Horse wrote:

  Hmmm! Not sure that makes sense as subset and subordinate don't equate 
to each other.
Did you actually mean to say:
"By making the Intellectual level subordinate to the MOQ, thereby 
avoiding the disharmony of recursion"?

Works either way for me. Or, I could have said, " By making the intellectual a 
subtopic of the MOQ, thereby avoiding the disharmony of recursion. Or, I could 
have said, "By making the intellectual level a smaller box contained within the 
the larger box of MOQ, thereby avoiding the disharmony of recursion. Or I could 
have said, By making the intellectual a subsidiary of the MOQ, thereby avoiding 
the disharmony of recursion. Or I could have said  . . .  well, I hope these 
few alternatives help clarify my meaning.       


On 26/07/2010 14:55, plattholden at gmail.com wrote:
> On 26 Jul 2010 at 14:28, Horse wrote:
>
> Could you explain this further Platt as I'm not sure what you mean by the
> Intellectual Level being a subset of the MoQ.
>
>
> On 26/07/2010 14:10, Platt Holden wrote:
>>>>   Bo'sinterpretation is better because it makes the MOQ more harmonious.
>>>>
>>>>   Ron:
>>>>   Please explain how it makes the MOQ more harmonious.
>>>>
>> [Platt]
>> By making the intellectual level a subset of the MOQ, thereby avoiding the
>> disharmony of recursion.
> Hi Horse,
>
> I used "subset" to mean "subordinate" as expressed by Pirsig in the Baggini
> interview:
>
> " I think you are right. Let's drop the word, "absolute," and simply say that
> "And in fact the Metaphysics of Quality actually supports the subject-object
> distinction as a subordinate part of its own structure." "
>

l