From: Paul Turner (pauljturner@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jun 09 2003 - 14:15:38 BST
Hi Scott
> It's not fuzzy to me at all. I am either mindful of
> what I am thinking or I
> am not.
Then your understanding of the MOQ has intellectual
quality for you, I accept that.
> But it is a good point as to whether this takes one
> away from the MoQ (as
> Pirsig views it). I think it doesn't, since if one
> removes the
> socially-patterned thinking from, say the United
> Nations, then one is
> considering inorganic and biological patterns.
And the intellectual patterns it supported. If you
remove the social pattern of the UN, there are still
the ideas, principles, laws and resolutions it
supported, but no one or nothing to remain in support
and put the intellectual patterns to use. No political
authority, no security forces. UN resolutions without
social and biological enforcement don't achieve
anything.
> Why I think the distinction between (as I call it)
> social and intellectual
> thinking is important is that without it, the MoQ
> would have little
> soteriological value. The distinction being made has
> long been made as the
> difference between attachment and detachment, which
> I consider vital.
>
> There's more to this question, though, but I need to
> think about it more
> before going on with it.
I'd be interested in your thoughts Scott. Thanks for
at least considering mine.
cheers
Paul
__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/yplus/yoffer.html
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 : Mon Jun 09 2003 - 14:16:06 BST