> [Arlo had said] > Indeed, Pirsig says "subjects are social and intellectual values". > Read that again. It says EXACTLY what I said. > > [Platt] > Read this again about the individual. (Pirsig says "individual," not > "subjects.") > > [Arlo] > And again, you seem to think that the quote your provide denies the > quote I provide. They don't. I support both quotes. Sadly, you have > to rely on distorted rhetoric to use one quote to deny another.
That you support both quotes is the laugh of the century. > I've already provided ample proof, and several key quotes, from > Pirsig demonstrating that the "self" of the MOQ is "social" and > "proprietary". > > [Platt] > So much for the value of your leftist agenda. > > [Arlo] > Its this kind of moronic bunk that is embarrassing. But if you mean > "supporting big government programs", again I remind you that Pirsig > is an avowed "lifelong democrat". Read what he said in the ZMM quote. What's really embarrassing is your denial of the obvious. > [Platt] > None of your quotes deny the distinction between the individual and > "big programs of social planning." > > [Arlo] > Who's talking about that? I am talking about the collectivist origins > of mind. The "self" in the MOQ as a point of contact between social > assimilation and unique bounded experience. Just like Pirsig says... "Collectivist origin of the mind" -- thanks for proving my point! > "The Metaphysics of Quality resolves the relationship between > intellect and society, subject and object, mind and matter, by > embedding all of them in a larger system of understanding. Objects > are inorganic and biological values; subjects are social and > intellectual values." And the individual is all four, a fact you always overlook in pushing your collectivist agenda. > [Platt] > Nonsense. Your quotes are irrelevant to the fundamental conflict in the MOQ. > > [Arlo] > No, they are irrelevant to YOUR fundamental conflict in the MOQ. They > are relevant to anyone truly interested in more than using the MOQ as > an apologist doctrine to wage some moronic war against "collectivism". No. They are relevant only to your using the MOQ as an apologist doctrine to wage war against individualism > [Platt] > Ham made the mistake of relying on your one-sided interpretation of the MOQ. > > [Arlo] > No. Ham denies 1/2 of Pirsig. You deny the other 1/2. You both have > the "one-sided" interpretations. Its actually funny to watch. But > sad, since you are both so stuck in "proving" something you miss an > opportunity for true expansion of thought. What's even more funny is > how you use one quote of Pirsig's to "deny" another quote. I've never > actually seen anyone do this before, for any author. It's astonishing. What's truly hilarious and sad is your ignoring any quote that opposes your one-sided interpretation of the MOQ. > [Platt] > If Descartes had said, "I am because I can respond to DQ" he would > have been correct. > > [Arlo] > At least here you finally break with Pirsig outright. ""If Descartes > had said, "The seventeenth century French culture exists, therefore I > think, therefore I am," he would have been correct."(LILA) No break at all. Simply adding a unique Pirsigian concept. > [Platt] > The individual "owes" her existence to many things, primarily a > biological pattern. Culture obviously has an influence on the > individual's development, but has little effect on her creative, > Dynamic responses. > > [Arlo] > "Our intellectual description of nature is always culturally > derived." The "self" that is able to respond to DQ on the > intellectual level, as we know from Pirsig the "self" is an > intellectual pattern, is able to do so only through the assimilation > of a collective consciousness. Without that, your "individual" would > be forever stuck responding to DQ on only the biological and inorganic > levels. > > As to your little Cartesian "me", Pirsig is quite clear. "This > Cartesian "Me," this autonomous little homunculus who sits behind our > eyeballs looking out through them in order to pass judgment on the > affairs of the world, is just completely ridiculous. This > self-appointed little editor of reality is just an impossible fiction > that collapses the moment one examines it." (LILA) As I keep reminding you, culture influences the individual, but is not the whole individual by a long shot, and your reference to the Cartesian me is just another of your laughable red herrings. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
