> > Ron: > > Why do you suppose he states that the intellectual level is the most > > moral > > Static pattern then says to serve morality you must kill all > > intellectual > > Patterns, per your view, isn't this contradictive? > > Patt: > Hoes does that prove than "man is the measure of value?" > > Ron: > Isn't the intellectual level what defines humans? Man is the > intellectual judge of all things.
Unfortunately, most humans make moral judgments based on old political and religious social patterns, or on SOM intellectual patterns that don't recognize morals other than the old social ones. . > Platt: > > I have no problem with your judging me or anything else. That seems to > be > something you object to. I don't. Life is judging one damn thing after > another > between the no-judgments of birth and death. > > Ron: > Nothing wrong with making judgments Platt, Pragmatically it's what > Holds the whole ball of wax together, it's the domination of a > particular > Type of misinterpreted judgment, that of MoQ absolute reality I hold > issue with. Could you further explain what you mean by "MoQ absolute reality?" That's a new one on me. > Platt: > But be that as it may, what positions > of mine contradict themselves? I trust you do recognize the > self-contradiction > in the belief "There are no absolutes." > > Ron: > > The fact you advocate morals but denounce social patterns. Don't think that's true. I denounce the social pattern of big government but support many traditional social patterns like craftsmanship, self- reliance and self-responsibility. > That you hold better-ness as a virtue but do not define what better-ness is > Less than Intellectual superiority and domination, yet while Pirsig > specifically states that killing all intellectual patterns is what serves > better-ness not intellectual dominance. That seems more a Pirsig contradiction than mine. I don't favor killing all intellectual patterns. That's not betterness to me. > The belief that there are no absolutes is not an absolute belief. Glad to hear. Do you think there are any absolute beliefs? > Absolutes may exist but they do not exist with any duration, nature > abhors domination. > Quality refuses definition or domination. You seem pretty certain about that. Is that belief absolute? Do you have doubts? > The proliferation of the concept that Quality equals intellectual > domination > Is not only inaccurate but amounts to an intentional pollution of MoQ > principles to support ones social level views. Which even by your > interpretation is highly Immoral don't you think? Quality equals reality. Quality equals morality. Ergo, reality equals morality. The MOQ segments morality (reality) into four levels from the lowest (inorganic) to the highest (intellectual). The problem is that the current intellectual pattern is dominated by a mistaken view of reality, a subjective-objective view, that is blind to any morals except old traditional social morals. That blindness has led to all sorts of problems because S-O intellectuals have taken over society, introducing various forms of socialism in many Western countries with a resulting smothering of responses to Dynamic Quality. That in brief is how I interpret Pirsig's view as described in Lila. Do you see it differently? 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/
