[P] Disagree. I'm with Ben Franklin: "So convenient a thing it is to be a rational creature, since it enables us to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do." In other words, there's no such thing as pure objectivity.
[Arlo] I didn't say "reason" was objective either. You seem to be trying to force reason to be either subjective or objective, and I think this is a metaphysical split I disagree with. This is like asking if social patterns are objective or subjective, or if biological patterns are objective or subjective. These are invalid questions, IMO. [Platt] That's what I want, to keep the system we have... [Arlo] I think the system is a good one, one that is not beyond improving, but also one that could easily be degraded... we can't be so static out of fear of dissolution, but nor can we move every which way the wind blows. [P] We basically agree, but I don't see the threat from religious zealots that you see. Rather, I see the threat coming from those who use reason (intellect) that thwarts our constitutional methods of establishing and enforcing laws. I think we are less likely to succumb to Islam, the Pope or Christian fundamentalists than we are to communism/socialism. We know what Pirsig thinks of such intellectually-guided societies. I agree with him. [Arlo] I don't think Pirsig would have though any better about those who use/manipulate religion to demand legislation. Do you not think the constitution of the US is an intellectually guided document? I do. In fact, I think the "Establishment Clause" is itself a great example of the moral dominance of intellect over social patterns. 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
