On Aug 2, 2010, at 2:03 PM, David Thomas wrote: > Hi Ian, > >> But isn't that just the "little knowledge" argument Dave ... is a >> dangerous thing. >> >> Clearly, in the wrong hands the ill-advised with ill-intent, could do >> a lot of moral damage with ... just about anything. >> >> My view is pragmatic. Name a preferable metaphysics, or working >> world-view / model, or suggest why giving up seeking to find >> improvement is preferable to "what the heck, it's not worth the effort >> of managing the risks". >> >> I've no illusions over the MoQ's imperfections, and Pirsig's >> imperfections are manifest, but ... so ... what ... > > I guess what scares me is the rigid structure of moral dominance with the > intellectual level seen as the highest level of static good coupled with a > mystical, undefined, quasi-religious DQ and pragmatism could lead to > newness of ideas by default being equated to goodness of ideas. I think this > is what happened in part with the application of Darwin's work to societies > prior to any real understanding of it's consequences. > > Dave
Greetings Dave, Would you please elaborate on your phrase "quasi-religious DQ" ??? It seems you've used a very negative connotation without explanation. Meditation might be useful as a scientific tool to study first-hand the deeper states of knowing. But of course, if you prefer regurgitating second & third-hand texts to first-hand study, I don't think you can gripe about what you are too lazy to know for yourself. Marsha ___ 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/md/archives.html
