[MD] Re Arlo

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 27 Jul 2010 at 18:01, Horse wrote:

  Hi Platt

I think your reply clarifies your meaning quite well. In your attempt to 
validate Bo's version of the MoQ you are continuing the mangling of 
Robert Pirsigs work.

Hi Horse,
You asked us to refrain from negative rhetoric. An amicable approach would be 
something like, "I disagree with your position and here's why?" Then, to 
provide context for the reader, you would repeat what you disagree with before 
answering.

[Horse]
You appear to be proposing a further static level beyond the 
intellectual level in order to obviate the threat of the intellect as 
the highest static good. It's the Intellectual level as the highest 
static good that seems to be what causes you and the other SIMians to be 
fearful.

[Platt]
This sort of rhetoric that questions one's motives has no place in a civil 
discourse. Revised: "You appear to propose a static level beyond the 
intellectual level. Is this true? My civil answer: "No. Would you care to 
explain how you arrived at that conclusion? Perhaps I haven't made myself  
clear." Don't need the insulting "SIMians" or the assigning of motives at the 
end.  

[Horse]
However, the MoQ states quite clearly that there are 4 static levels and 
DQ - that's it:

 From Lila Chapter 12
"In this plain of understanding static patterns of value are divided 
into four systems: inorganic patterns, biological patterns, social 
patterns and intellectual patterns. They are exhaustive. That´s all 
there are. If you construct an encyclopedia of four topics-Inorganic, 
Biological, Social and Intellectual-nothing is left out. No "thing," 
that is. Only Dynamic Quality, which cannot be described in any 
encyclopedia, is absent."

So what you're proposing has little to do with the MoQ. The MoQ doesn't 
have a problem with seeing itself as an Intellectual pattern - you have 
that problem and that fear. And Bo's latest tirade on another thread re: 
academia bears this out well.

[Platt]
Since you' ve assumed that I propose a static level above the fourth, you 
conclusion doesn't follow. The next sentence is arguable not only based on your 
false conclusion, but because you presume to speak for the MOQ, ending with 
another assigning of motive. Finally, calling Bo's post his "latest tirade" 
isn't helpful --and by helpful I mean if your goal is to encourage polite 
conversation among contributors. 

Just to show a reasonably polite discourse can take place here between two 
people with wildly opposed views, I refer you to the recent discussion I had 
with Krimel in the "Bo's weak vs. strong . . ." thread. It ain't perfect, but I 
think it shows improvement over some exchanges on this site. 

Finally, you said in another post, "Discussing one's core beliefs can be very 
emotional." Agree. But isn't it a sign of maturity to control one's emotions? I 
think so. At least it certainly helps in developing constructive dialogues.

I plead mea culpa to giving back as good as I get and realize the whole shtick 
is childish. But, it takes two to tango. I would like nothing better than to 
see all contributors bend over backwards to avoid churlish behavior. I'll do my 
best if others will do likewise. 

What do you think?
Platt        

P.S. All my examples of suggested better ways to say things above carries the 
addendum, "or words to the effect." 

On 26/07/2010 20:00, plattholden at gmail.com wrote:
>
> 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.