[MD] Really? Is that all there is?

[ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR]

[Krimel]
Arlo has not responded ATM but I found Dave's comments truly astonishing.  Is this the current MoQ orthodoxy? 

[Arlo]
Yeah, see, this "orthodoxy" rhetoric won't win you favor with me. It's rather inane and jades my thinking that your comments even deserve a reply. 

There is no "orthodoxy", there is Pirsig's ideas, and those who find value in them, and those who do not and either reject or offer something they propose as better. No one accepts Pirsig's ideas "because Pirsig said so" (orthodoxy), but because to date nothing better has been offered.

You think you are offering something better, I get that, but if its rejected (by me or others), claiming its the result of "orthodoxy" is just nonsense.

[Krimel]
Dave jumps all over the accusation of SOM and pummels it with the MoQ. Dave's version of the MoQ seems to be a replacement of SOM. 

[Arlo]
Well, yeah, Pirsig's metaphysics (the MOQ) is meant to replace subject-object metaphysics. To recap, this is the 'replacement'.

SOM: Subjects and objects precede experience ('we' experience 'stuff').
MOQ: Experience precedes subjects and objects (both 'we' and 'stuff' derive from experience).

Other than restating over and over that you think that 'stuff' precedes experience, and me restating over and over that experience precedes 'stuff', I really don't know what your point is. Yes, I get that you think static quality precedes experience, yes I get that you reject that Quality precedes subjects and objects. Okay. So you reject Pirsig's foundational declaration. I get that. 

So? What do you want? What are you offering better? Why does placing 'stuff' (subjects and objects) as primary (preceding) offer something better than Pirsig's metaphysics that isn't already old-hat (since its just SOM with Pirsig terminology)?

[Krimel]
We enlightened ones speak MoQ.

[Arlo]
Yeah. Of course you "speak MOQ".  And with that, I'm done with this.