Hi Platt,
Intellectual patterns do have an obligation to dominate social patterns
actually.
Intellectual patterns that reinforce the social patterns' obligation to
dominate biological patterns are likely to experience more freedom in the
long run.
This is all clear in the MOQ and i am stating nothing that is not there to be
read.
Pirsig also states that intellect is defective, and to this extent you are
not stating anything that is not there to be read either.
The defect in intellectual patterns is identified as the dominance of an
absolute truth.
The cure is to reinstate the Protagoras relativity of morals; with an
understanding that Quality is the only truth.
That Quality is the only truth and the MOQ a science if values is stated by
Pirsig.
I understand why the US was attacked.
I do not like it.
I do not support it.
I do not feel the act had moral authority.
We live in a delicate relationship with our Planet, and i feel it is a high
moral obligation for humans to live in harmony with it.
Pointing out that consumerism is inflicting vast damage to our Planet is a
moral obligation for me.
I feel this addresses your questions?
All the best,
Squonk.
In a message dated 9/18/01 4:21:18 PM GMT Daylight Time, pholden@sc.rr.com
writes:
<< Subj: Re: MD Four theses
Date: 9/18/01 4:21:18 PM GMT Daylight Time
From: pholden@sc.rr.com (Platt Holden)
Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
Reply-to: moq_discuss@moq.org
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
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