[Platt] There are many references I could cite to support my statement that the values of the higher level are often at odds with those of the lower. Here is just one: "The one dominating question of this century has been, 'Are the social patterns of our world going to run our intellectual life, or is our intellectual life going to run the social patterns.' And in that battle, the intellectual patterns have won." (Lila, 21) Note the use of "battle" and "won."
[Krimel] I am well aware of such quotes and I think he is wrong. He elects not to comment on our comments about his comments. I would think you should be especially grateful for this. But here are two illustrations of my point: Easter Island and Haiti. Both islands were deforested as a result of the need for cooking fuel. The human populations in both places have never recovered. Some suggest they could foreshadow the fate of the planet but of course you will have none of that. [Platt] Here is Pirsig's description of Dynamic Quality: When A. N. Whitehead wrote that "mankind is driven forward by dim apprehensions of things too obscure for its existing language," he was writing about Dynamic Quality. Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of realty, the source of all things, completely simple and always new. It was the moral force that had motivated the brujo in Zuni. It contains no pattern of fixed rewards and punishments. Its only perceived good is freedom and its only perceived evil is static quality itself-any pattern of one-sided fixed values that tries to contain and kill the ongoing free force of life." (Lila, 9) You'll have a hard time convincing anyone that science can study a "moral force" that is the "source of all things." I assume from your comment above that anything that science can't study doesn't exist. Right? [Krimel] Good writing but not to be taken as literally as you want to do. What remains is you lack of incite as to the relationship better lower level morals and higher level ones. Science indeed studies them all with methodologies adapted to each level. David can correct me here but I believe this is what Dupree is getting at in the Disorder of Things? The discussion of scientism got me checking into your last comment there and I found that I appear to subscribe to naturalism. That is, what I reject is the supernatural. This qualifies me as a Bright I think. [Platt] Since DQ is pre-intellectual I don't see how it is within relationships since relationships are intellectual divisions of pure experience. [Krimel] What would you say pre-intellectual means? 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/
