Hi Dan
Hi ROG
Hi everyone else
I'm going to take the advise of ROG and define my terms so we can put a bit of direction into the discussion, it seems a bit lost at the moment... I should also say that while i admit the expression of my views is often harsh and aggressive, this is not intended to be the case. I'm sure we're all aware of the feeling of having thoughts moving quicker than the hands can type them and this is the case with my aggression. It is not intended, i just get a bit carried away with myself (my ex says that's because I'm a stupid, drunk Arien. :o) ) and apologise if i sometimes seem abrasive, I am trying to change this little trait of mine.
Edgar's definitions:
Organic values and systems
The values concerned with all organic life forms to exist, and to exist without hostile intrusion of their freedom to exist by other organic or inorganic systems.
Social values and systems
The values concerned with ensuring communities of individuals can coexist without hostile intrusion of their freedom by other social, organic and inorganic values.
Intellectual values and systems
The values concerned with ensuring the freedom of flows of ideas and trade within a political system without hostile intrusion by other intellectual, social, organic or inorganic values.
In terms of progression of ideas, i think that all levels from the point of view of our existence are put on top of the pile and thus cloud the real way things are. so when we humans look at an intellectual idea, we don't look at it intellectually, we look at the way this intellectual idea affects us as human beings. in this way i can understand why it looks like society and intellect appear to some to be at war: because we human beings see them fighting for the right to govern us. This is basically what Pirsig was saying on p 232 of ZAMM. viewed from outside the realm of human interaction , the intellect does ignore society. viewed from the human perspective they appear at war. IMO, of course! Primarily i am concerned with the absolute picture ie i try to ignore the distortion created by viewing things from human eyes. maybe i should be looking from the human angle but that particular angle makes no sense to from the point of view of MOQ.
I know these are very vague as i am not from a background of philosophy so don't really know how to define things professionally, please feel free to pick at any holes you may see and I'll try to increase the detail of the definitions.
I will just add though that i believe the cleave between the groups to be correct so am not trying to avoid a definition, i just can always express my thoughts as I'd like to. objections from others usually gives me a point to concentrate on. feel free to load both barrels (as ROG puts it so well).
Kind regards
Richard.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:51 BST