Hi Platt, no you didn't answer my questions the first time around, or at least I didn't see your answers. I thought I had hurt your sensibilities by using the word 'twat' in my post; later still I realised what that rhymed with. I shouldn't have resorted to such words and apologise again.
I understand and agree with the Lila quote you supplied and I accept that we should all realise that we must subject ourselves to a certain amount of voluntary suffering to avoid stagnation and promote life, this is called work. But also we should work to avoid involuntary suffering. Distinguishing between them is called intelligence. I agree with you that we don't generally intellectualise our altruistic behaviour, it's part of our social training; the business world is a different matter though - do you have any stocks and shares? Or how about if you hold a door open for a colleague and they don't in some small way acknowledge - do you hold it open for them next time? Platt you said 'IMO, what is good is an intuitive, not an intellectual concept.' ... in your borrowed opinion maybe. But we can't not intellectualise about it and I completely agree that rationalisations about what is good or bad come after the immediate experience - that's classic Pirsig. Nevertheless, in our complex world experience has to be digested to get the best out of it. As Jung said 'there is nothing so bad that some good cannot come of it'; that's where the thinking comes in. -Peter On 20/11/2007, Platt Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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/ > 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/
