Platt and all: Nary a mention of moral codes? Well, first of all Mati was asking for definitions of the levels, not the codes. Its kinda silly to complain just because we're staying on the topic. But more than that, its just not true. Arlo can speak for himself, but my own comments certainly included a big dose of talk about morality. Cain and Able, the social level's role in controlling the biological forces, the mistake of twentieth century intellectuals on this point as in Margaret Mead and the free love hippies, and especially the stuff about the social level being the term between biology and intellect, about not encroaching either - all that was clearly about the codes. (I would have thought you'd eat that up.) Instead you pretend it never happened? Take another look for yourself. The post you complain about is still sitting there and its full of these kinds of moral issues. Its not like I can go back in time to add the stuff you say isn't there. Its just there. Perhaps you need new e ye glasses?
Also, Mati was asking about the MOQ's definition of the intellect, not about the flaws in SOM. Again, its just a matter of staying on the topic. Besides, is there anybody around here who disagree with the Pirsigian notion that SOM is flawed? Not me. One could make a case that Ham and Krimmel are SOMers but that's about it and I've certainly never heard such a thing from Arlo. And yet you keep harping on as if SOM had defenders here. Sorry, but I just don't see how your complaints add up, not even with a very generous interpretation. Mati didn't ask, but I think it would be nice if we didn't pollute this particular thread with tangents and distractions. Looks like he's setting the groundwork for a pretty serious discussion on a set of issues that he sincerely cares about. And so do I. Maybe you could use another thread called meta-gauntlet or something to help keep this one focused on the topic. In that spirit, I'm gonna stop this post right now. Platt said: > I find it puzzling that in both Arlo's and DMB's answers to Mati's questions > that there is nary a mention of the moral codes that Pirsig says are the > defining characteristics of the levels. It seems both have ignored the > basic premise of the MOQ that the world -- at each and every level -- is a > moral order, and that a significant problem with today's scientifically > dominated S-O intellect is its complete moral blindness. If cognitive > abstractions alone are the defining characteristics of the intellectual > level, then we have a problem. _________________________________________________________________ Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger2_072008 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/
