DMB You made the same mistake as Ian. I have been laying out for over a month now, the negative consequences of Bo's interpretation and trying to find some reasonable resolution, with no success. You take those examples for my position. But to be honest as I've been exploring those issues I have become more and more uneasy with some of the MoQ's relationships and their implications. > Even as you deny it, there is still the implication that designating a culture > as social is an insult to their intelligence. I said nothing about their intelligence. But to claim that people of social cultures do not have intellects, is yes an insult to the intelligence of people everywhere. Intelligence and intellect are two different words with two distinct and different meanings. I just finished CBC Episode 22 where anthropologist Allan Young referring to a study of a tribe in the upper Nile in the 1930's quotes the study as saying, "..they were empirical people, with intellects that appreciated progress, they wanted the best for their families. They just believed in witches." This scientist claims they had "intellects". Bo would claim not, I agree with the scientist. I also believe this not so subtle distinction is necessary to figure out the relationships between social/intellectual levels. >That's not what Pirsig ever meant by it. I agree. But RMP gives examples and is unclear enough in many ways that he can be easily misinterpreted. (ie the moral superiority of socialism) > If you want to be insulted by that label, then it would be an > insult to that culture's morality but only if that society asserted social > level values at the expense of intellectual values in those cases where they > conflict. As you well know Dave, I am not much worried about taking or giving insult. I am however concerned about consequences. Particularly of bad ideas held up to be good. This is the crux isn't it. Taken to the extreme if the intellectual level (science) has the moral right to dominate every thing then society has no moral right to say anything to or about science except, Yes sir. How stupid and seriously dangerous is that. The interpretation that the MoQ claims reality is exclusively a top down moral order is just as dangerous as the reductionist claim it is determined from bottom up. Neither is true or good. > The way you've construed it, Pirsig is just a racist who thinks everybody else > is stupid and that, sir, is just hateful slander. Plus it's stupid and kinda > creepy. Misunderstandings usually have a way measuring out stupidity and hatefulness equally.
Dave 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/
