Hi Arlo,m Thanks, that makes sense.
Steve On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote: > [Steve] > I was thinking the same thing when I read Platt's post, but I wonder if > Platt's take on intellect polluting beauty is consistent with some of > Pirsig's writings nevertheless. > > [Arlo] > Only if Platt had said "S/O Intellect is blind to 'beauty'". If you go back > to ZMM, I'm sure you can even stretch that complaint to include "pollute", > but only with the S/O qualifier (pun intended). But "intellect" > in-and-of-itself? Nope. Intellect is Pirsig's highest order of static value. > I doubt Pirsig would ever say that "calculus" or "quantum physics" pollutes > beauty, indeed he'd probably say these, like symphonies, can be very > beautiful indeed. In fact, it was "intellect" in ZMM that Pirsig was trying > to show has been blinded by S/O perspectives, but that once those are > removed, intellect (the assembly of rotisseries) can and SHOULD be an art > form of the highest order. > > > > 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/ > 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/
