[MD] Capitalism: my experience

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 1 Mar 2010 at 13:08, X Acto wrote:


Platt to John:

Maybe you got off on the wrong foot with your analysis. Bo has never 
claimed that SOM is intellect as you imply in your first sentence. Rather, 
SOM as created and defined by Pirsig is the value of the subject-object 
division of reality (direct experience). If we can keep in mind that the 
MOQ consists of static value pattern levels plus DQ, then perhaps Bo's 
interpretation will be better understood.  

But, maybe not. And as always, I could be wrong.

Ron:
If S/O division of reality is direct experience, as you state above,
it conflicts with the ZMM conclusion that value is direct experience
and S/O division is a culturally dominant idea.

If S/O is indeed reality (direct experience) then why would we change
our "metaphysical" assumptions based on it since it would then
theoretically cover all of direct experience? why switch from SOM
to MoQ?

Platt
But it doesn't cover "all of direct experience" as Pirsig clearly states. It 
doesn't cover value. S/O constricts direct experience to subjects and 
objects.  MOQ corrects that nearsightedness.    

Ron:
How does MoQ account for value if S/O is intellect
      
How do values emerge out of a valueless intellectual level?

Platt
Direct experience

Values don't "emerge" (oops) from anything. Values=direct 
experience=reality.