Hi Squonk:
> The premise that intellectual patterns have a moral obligation to dominate
> social patterns is not in dispute.
Wrong. The premise is in dispute, as Pirsig points out, when 1) the
prevailing intellectual pattern has a crucial defect in it, and 2) when it
interferes with society's effort to eradicate the biological forces of
terrorism.
> Gross arrogant displays of opulence, and the bribing of allies with the same
> is not a high quality social pattern, because consumerism is only going to
> end up consuming all available planetary resources.
> If there was an intellectually stimulated shift in social values towards a
> social arte, instead of grabbing the most expensive car in the showroom, then
> we may all be more secure and content with what is appropriate for living
> well, and not that which we feel to be appropriate in economic terms; thus
> furthering our exclusion from each other, and our biosphere.
Here you merely repeat the accusations against the U.S. by the radical
Left. Are you agreeing with them in saying the U.S. deserved to be
attacked?
> This approach utilises a science of morals, not a science of substance
> and matter.
Like Tanya I also would like to know more about your "science of
morals." Care to enlighten us?
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:30 BST