[MD] Science - Delusions in Search of Theory

[david buchanan]

Platt said to Andre:
 Just to clarify my positions in your mind. 1) I don't support religion. 2) I do support  the free market system (like Pirsig), and 3) I do criticize intellectual patterns of value (like Pirsig). If I have led you to think otherwise, I apologize for not making myself clear.


dmb says:
This is an excellent example of what I was complaining about. Platt is wrong on all three counts. Anyone who can read and think ought to know better and yet Platt is apparently incapable of either even when you put the evidence right in front of him, repeatedly, over the course of a decade or so. One wonders how thick armor can get, you know?

"The MOQ supports religion but does not support many Christian traditions." (Pirsig in the Copleston annotations) I'd even go so far as to say the MOQ IS a religion. It's not a theistic religion, of course, as we know from other statements from Pirsig.

"...a culture that supports the dominance of intellectual values over social values is absolutely superior to one that does not." (Lila, p.311) Platt has confused Pirsig's attack on SOM as an attack on intellectual values. That's just bad thinking and he has to ignore lots of Pirsig's claims for it to make any sense at all. Writing a metaphysics to reject intellectual values makes about as much sense as writing a owner's manual to trash cars. 

"From a static point of view, socialism is more moral than capitalism. It's a higher form of evolution. It is an intellectually guided society, not just a society that is guided by mindless traditions. That's what gives socialism its drive." No matter how many times I put this quote on Platt's plate, he can't grasp it. 

"It is not that Victorian social economic patterns are more moral than socialist intellectual economic patterns. Quite the opposite. They are less moral as static patterns go." Same thing with this quote, where Pirsig disagrees with Platt's view three times. Social economic are not more moral. The opposite is true. They are less moral. But as Platt reads it, Pirsig supports the less moral social patterns and rejects the higher intellectual values. To anyone who can read or think, this is obviously wrong.

No matter what anyone says, including Pirsig, Platt just thinks what he wants to think regardless of whether it makes sense or is supported by the text. He just won't or can't think clearly about what he's reading. So why do anybody bother talking to him about anything? Does honestly and intelligence and fairness count for nothing? Why do I feel like a need a shower after I read a post from Platt?