Quoting Krimel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [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.
I would think we would all be especially grateful for Pirsig's comments on our comments. > 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. What's your point? > [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. Is that an answer to my question? Does Bright mean above average intelligence or something like that? > [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? What you know before you know anything else. What do you think it means? ------------------------------------------------- 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/
