[MD] Capitalism: my experience

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 1 Mar 2010 at 19:22, 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?
      
Platt
Direct experience.

Ron:
you said that was S/O division


Platt
All divisions originate from direct experience. S/O is one division. But, it 
excludes values. The MOQ is another division -- DQ/SQ. But it includes 
values. 

S/O is narrow, DQ/SQ is broad. DQ/SQ embraces S/O within its 
domain, known as the SQ level of intellect.

Ron:
So DQ/SQ's domain is the intellectual level.

Platt
No. Check Note 132 In Lila's Child. We covered this ground many times 
before.