From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Oct 18 2005 - 11:01:07 BST
Scott you said to me:
I have to say that I am getting somewhat exasperated by your response. I
have tried to get a dialogue going by saying what intellect means to me ...
I do apologise, my intent is not to frustrate. As I say, keeping the
dialogue going exactly that way is all I want to do too - it's the
only way to progress. The linguistic aside I made was simply to
unblock where I though the argument had stuck on unrecognised
misunderstandings over different usages of the word - "intellect" in
this case, "judging value" in another DMB / Matt thread.
So taking up a point ...
You said
Changing the way one thinks about intellect also means changing the
way one thinks about DQ, and I think that is really what drives DMB up
a wall.
I'm not sure I agree. Changing the way one thinks about intellect (and
consciousness and rationality, etc) is the key driver for this wider
debate, but I've not seen anything that suggests a rethinking of DQ. I
thought Mark's DESRIP summary had that pretty well captured for our
MoQ needs. (You're one of those people who thinks MoQ is wrong or
broken, no ? I'm one who thinks it's pretty well right, just in need
of a few clarifications - weeding out a few confusions, many of them
introduced by Pirsig or with his collusion. Let me recap the thread
whilst you explain what needs "re-thinking" about DQ.)
Ian
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Tue Oct 18 2005 - 11:06:38 BST