Quoting ian glendinning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Platt > > "said the intellectual was better, more moral > than the social level. Arlo said I was wrong." > > That is patently a lie.
What is? That intellect was better, more moral than the social level? Or that Arlo said I was wrong? Clarity is not your strong point. > As I say I'm done, and I think Arlo is too. One can only hope. > On 2/21/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Quoting ian glendinning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > Platt, > > > > > > Pack it in you imbecile. Where did Arlo ever say > > > "Lower and higher forms of life are equal." ? > > > > Ian: Give it up you jerk. I said the intellectual was better, more moral > > than the social level. Arlo said I was wrong. So I quoted Pirsig to the > contrary. > > Where's your brain? > > > > > YOU ARE IGNORANT by definition, and in a very long-lived static kind of > > > way > too. > > > What is the point of anyone responding to you ? > > > That was fun (not). > > > Ian > > > PS having already questioned Arlo and others for even bothering to > > > debate with you, normal service will be resumed, after half a day's > > > aberration. > > > > You keep promising. Your promises are as good as your intelligence. > > > > > On 2/21/08, Platt Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > [Platt] > > > > > The intellectual (individual) level is better than the social > > > > > (collective) level. > > > > > > > > > > [Arlo] > > > > > I'm not talking about Platt's neocon MOQ, nor do I have any desire > > > > > to, I'm talking about Pirsig's. > > > > > > > > Let's talk Pirsig's MOQ: > > > > > > > > "But what he saw at this point was a social pattern of -values, a film, > > > > devouring an intellectual pattern of values, his book. It would be a > > > > lower > > > > form of life feeding upon a higher form of life. As such it would be > > > > immoral. And that's exactly how it felt: immoral." (Lila, 20). > > > > > > > > For Arlo, lower and higher forms of life are equal. Comical. > > > > > > > > > [Platt] > > > > > If all was balanced, there would be no evolution. > > > > > > > > > > [Arlo] > > > > > Wrong. It is balance (not stasis) that allows evolution. Without it, > > > > > new directions would not latch on one hand, and on the other there > > > > > would be no new directions. > > > > > > > > Balance implies stasis -- physical equilibrium. > > > > ------------------------------------------------- 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/
