RE: MD Can Only Humans Respond to DQ?

From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Nov 25 2002 - 03:20:42 GMT

  • Next message: Scott R: "Re: MD Individuality"

    DMB:
     
    > DMB says:
    > Something occured to me just moments after I sent the last post. Let me
    > re-orient you and the other readers to the original point of this
    > discussion. You, or somebody, had asked if only intellect can respond to
    > DQ. This is where Lila's characteristics came into the picture. I sited her
    > as an example of one who is without intellect, but one who is also dynamic.
    > I thought this answered the question in the negative. No, intellect is not
    > a pre-requisite for dynamism. Then the question sort of morphed into the
    > broader one reflected in the subject line, "can only humans respond to DQ."
    > And this question is answered in the quote you provided, but in the rush to
    > refute my assertions about Lila, you apparently lost track of the topic
    > once again and missed it. As anyone can see in this quote, even cells and
    > animals can be dynamic.

    You mean even cells and animals were once dynamic. You glide right
    over Pirsig's use of the past tense in the provided quote Nor have I "lost
    track of the topic once again" as you claim (unable as you are to resist
    childish insults). This subject was originated by me in a post addressed
    to you, Matt, and All dated 17 Nov. in which I wrote:

    "This raises the question I haven't found Pirsig answering directly: Does
    an organism need an intellectual pattern in its "collection" in order to be
    capable of responding to DQ? Or in plain English, "Can only humans
    respond to DQ?"

    The assumption inherent in the question is that all humans possess
    intellect. In a later post I wrote:

    My interpretation of sex and such is that they were all Dynamic
    responses that happened in the past but are now simply repetitions of
    firmly ensconced static (unchanging) patterns of behavior. Admittedly,
    Pirsig isn't absolutely clear on this question. That's why I raised it.

    The quote at issue supports my interpretation.

    > "The cells Dynamically invented animals to preserve and improve their
    > situation. The animals Dynamically invented societies, and societies
    > Dynamically invented intellectual knowledge for the same reasons.
    > Therefore, to the question, "What is the purpose of all this intellectual
    > knowledge?" the Metaphysics of Quality answers, "The fundamental purpose of
    > knowledge is to Dynamically improve and preserve society." Knowledge has
    > grown away from this historic purpose and become an end in itself just as
    > society has grown away from its original purpose of preserving physical
    > human beings and become an end in itself, and this growing away from
    > original purposes toward greater Quality is a moral growth. But those
    > original purposes are still there. And when things get lost and go adrift
    > it is useful to remember that point of departure."

    Obviously humans couldn't have lasted without having intellect (the
    rational faculty) from the beginning. Unlike animals, man is not born with
    instincts that ensure his survival.

    Platt

    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 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 25 2002 - 03:20:59 GMT