I completely agree, DB,
> dmb says: > > I think that's right. As Pirsig puts it, it's not that intellectual > patterns are truer in any absolute sense, whatever that means, it's just > that intellectual patterns are more dynamic, more flexible and, to the > extent that they're empirically based, they're self-correcting. The highest quality endeavor, imo, is the objective analysis of social patterns. What works, what doesn't. This "one up" objectivist attitude is what give the intellectual/objective level its great power and empirically demonstrable "good" effects. Truth is a concept we use to designate the relative worth of our intellectual patterns. Those we deem better, we call true. Just as when we say some set of ideas are true, in an intellectual sense, we mean that they are better - closer to the good. I mean, if there was such a thing as "good". > Apparently, David has the idea that intellectual means "smart" and social > means "dumb". Agreed. Perhaps he's been infected by Bo who also seems to promote that view. I believe there's a certain simplistic view of hierarchical morality that clouds understanding, one reason I've advocated before for a revision of this way of illustrating reality. love,love,love, John 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/
