[MD] Capitalism: my experience

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 2 Mar 2010 at 18:55, 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. 
      
Ron:
This does not pertain to Pirsig since you, along with Bodvar say that he 
is wrong.

Platt
We do not say Pirsig is wrong about everything, obviously. 

Ron
Lets us bring the conversation back to what you said:
"DQ/SQ embraces S/O within its domain, known as the SQ level of 
intellect."
You distinctly said DQ/SQ's domain is the static level of intellect did you 
not?

Platt
No. The domain of DQ/SQ encloses S/O, the intellectual level.  

Ron
This conflicts with the idea that S/O is the intellectual level.

Platt
What's the conflict?  Tea doesn't conflict with the domain of the cup. In 
fact it reposes in the cup rather comfortably.  

Ron
You still did'nt explain how values rise (aha!) out of a valueless 
intellectual level
and how DQ/SQ fits into this picture.

Platt
There's value in the intellectual level as in all levels. It's certainly not 
"valueless" as you say. DQ/SQ is Dynamic Quality and Static Quality, 
explained by Pirsig in Lila.  

Ron
It should be easy to explain if Pirsig is wrong and you and Bodvar are 
right.

Platt
Why easy? Depends I guess on how easily one can step back and think 
about his own thinking (to borrow a thought from John). .  

Ron:
Then please do. I would think you would have reasons to explain
why you agree on the matter of S/O being the intellectual level,
See I ask for reasons for your opinions.there must be some explaination
that justifies this belief.
Unless of course, it just suits your fancy to do so...no real reasons..

Platt
I've answered all your questions. If you find my answers unconvincing, 
so be it. I've done the best I can.