Hi Peter, > Apologies Platt, if I offended you, but please answer: > > you said: > "What is the role of intellect in determining > what is good?" My answer: "None."
No offense taken. I thought I answered your question. > My point was that both this discussion group and the computer are both > products of intellect. > It seems completely inane to me to say that intellect has no role in > determining what is good. > > Surely intelligence is nature's primary tool in determining what is good? > > I think you were just being provocative, playing devil's advocate. Can you > explain yourself further please? > > Question: What is good? Answer: that which reduces my suffering. May I ask you a question? How do you reconcile your belief about the absence of suffering being good with the following from Pirsig? "If you eliminate suffering from this world you eliminate life. There's no evolution. Those species that don't suffer don't survive. Suffering is the negative face of the Quality that drives the whole process." (Lila, 29) > Question: How can altruistic behaviour be good for me? Answer: because I > would feel bad if I didn't help and, besides, they may repay the favour > later. I agree with you that what is consider good and not so good is matter of feelings stemming from individual life experiences. Personally, I don't give favors with the expectation of that someday they'll be repaid. But maybe I'm naïve. IMO, what is good is an intuitive, not an intellectual concept. Quality is sensed immediately like sight, sound, touch, etc. Rationalizations about what is good or bad come after immediate experience. Hope this helps explain my answer. If not, please let me know. Best, Platt . 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/
