Quoting ian glendinning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Platt this is where your twisted rhetoric really grates ... > > The quoted paragraph is about the then current perceived state of > intellect as "science the appointed intellectual pattern" - not all > possible intellects for ever.
So you claim intellect has changed in the short time Pirsig wrote those words? How would you convince him? > I think we've all agreed GOF "science" is not the whole intellectual > story. Scientific empiricism does indeed not "see" morals, but science > / intellect is more than the basic empiricism of science --- look at > the threads where we've been discussing exactly this. Please specify the threads where Pirsig's view that the scientific worldview dominates intellect is argued against. > To summarise DMB - a flaw in one intellectual pattern is no reason to > abandon intellect entirely (and this is not a new complaint against > your stance). What other intellectual pattern would you suggest is NOT similarly flawed. Platt P.S. Thanks for the gratuitous insult about "twisted rhetoric." ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
