Greetings Platt, This is a clear rebuttal to all Dave's complaints. Great post!
Marsha On Aug 15, 2010, at 11:19 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Hi David T, > > On 14 Aug 2010 at 17:41, David Thomas wrote: > > Hi Platt, > >> and not to other criticisms of Pirsig's positions, like the social level >> not being limited to humans. > > Since I'm the purveyor of this travesty I would like to know, "Have you > honestly looked at and thought deeply about the issues I've raised?" Since > they have only occur to me just in the past few weeks after 15 years of > contemplation, I must say that I admire the awesome speed and power of your > intellect to discount the possibilities almost immediately. Wait, I forgot, > if you have a fixed position that's not so difficult at all. Nevermind! > > The problems with Bo's position are: > > 1. It has been discussed ad nauseam for 15 years and has oblivious logical > problems to which Bo responds with his smelly sock metaphor. This is > meaningless babble to almost everybody else, and I sometimes think, even to > him. > > What is meaningless babble to you is meaningful interpretation to others. The > number of people who agree or disagree with Bo is irrelevant to the validity > of > his views. Recall the "paintings in a gallery" analogy. > > 2. His position is based on the Romantic/Classic split and diagram in ZaMM > which Pirsig rejected early in Lila as one of a series of bad openings he > tried and since abandoned. > > Bo can speak for himself but I don't recall his ever making a reference to a > diagram in ZAMM. > > 3. When asked for an opinion on the issue Pirsig very politely and > diplomatically indicated he saw little value in Bo's position. > > True. But he also admitted the MOQ is an SOM document, necessary to "make > itself known," thereby admitting SOM's dominance at the intellectual > (cognitive) level. Also, Pirsig indicated very little value in extending the > social level to include animals. "One can also call ants and bees "social" > insects, but for purposes of precision in the MOQ social patterns should be > defined as human and subjective." (LS, No. 49) > > 4. Pirsig to some extent helped in the confusion. Classic is synonymous with > SOM (classic philosophy out of Aristotle). If that is so, the next box down > should not be "intellectual" but at least two boxes labeled "idealism" and > "realism" or some such classifications to show the broad range of classic > positions. No intellectual box, no simple minded direct transfer. > > Again, whether the diagram in ZAMM is faulty or not seems immaterial to the > SOL > interpretation. Verbal selections from ZAMM have been cited to support > Pirsig's > assault on the "Church of Reason," i.e., the intellectual level. > > 5.Bo's translation of R/C diagram into the MoQ is wrong headed at best and > just plain silly at worst. His translation places all romantic qualities on > the social level. Romantics maybe all about art, music, poetry, etc, but my > guess is that none would claim that they never use or do not have > intellects. Or that they are, and should be excluded from being > intellectuals. Shouldn't they just be sociable, happy, and keep dabbling in > that lower level DQ? > > Art, music, poetry, etc. are classified by Pirsig as "high quality endeavors" > that can apply to both social and intellectual levels. Remember that the MOQ > has high regard for SOM. "This may sound as though a purpose of the > Metaphysics > of Quality is to trash all subject-object thought but that's not true. Unlike > subject-object metaphysics the Metaphysics of Quality does not insist on a > single exclusive truth." (Lila, 8) Also, keep this quote in mind when some > here > argue that what Pirsig says should be taken as an "exclusive truth." > > 6. If a trained profession logician were to diagram Bo's position (if > somehow he could understand it) it would yield so many logic errors > rendering it false, that the number infinity comes to mind. > > Don't you think you should support this assertion with evidence? Do you know > any "trained professional logicians?" > > 7. In his frantic effort to shore up or defend his position over the last 15 > years he has rejected so much of Pirsig's MoQ that if his theory were to be > true only thing that would be left is the many acronyms of his position. > > I don't see Bo's views as being any more of a "frantic effort" that those who > try to trash them. > > But as you say Platt, I could be wrong. But so could Bo. He's just not > willing to consider that possibility. > > Yes, and so could Pirsig. So could anybody. I think that's a given, but it > doesn't hurt to admit it once in awhile. None of us has a monopoly on "the > truth" much less a "one right way to think." On that I'm sure we would all > agree, not that that alone would make it valid. :-) > > Thanks for the opportunity to discuss these issue, David. > > Regards, > Platt > > > > > 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 ___ 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
