On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 6:09 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote:
> > Arlo said: > The "conclusion" he is speaking about is clearly "that the SOM and the > intellectual level are one and the same". Nowhere in his reply do I see > anything about "necessary use of S/O language to convey the MOQ" or > anything about the MOQ's "essence" being compromised. I agree with Pirsig on > this, following the path of Bo and Platt lowers the quality of the MOQ. > Pirsig got that one right. > > > dmb says: > > I agree. The idea doesn't even work in general, regardless of its impact on > the MOQ. SOM is just one particular set of ideas. How does it make sense to > equate that with all ideas. The Ford Pinto is a car but it would be > ridiculous to assert that Pintos are one and the same as all cars. The dog > is not one and the same as all life forms and gold is not equal to all the > elements. It's just a silly idea. Period. > > Can we please move on? This whole debate is a total waste of time and > energy. It's keyboard abuse. > [Platt] SOM is the metaphysical premise that reality is subjects and objects. By comparing a subjective premise with an objective car, a dog and gold, your allegiance to SOM is revealed as cast in cement, resulting in the above keyboard foolishness. > 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/md/archives.html
