No Arlo, I doubt that you want other than to make a fool of me.
On Dec 1, 2010, at 7:18 AM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote: > [Pirsig] > The defect is that subject-object science has no provision for morals. ...Now > that intellect was in command of society for the first time in history, was > THIS the intellectual pattern it was going to run society with?" > > [Marsha] > Yes, science has the subject-object defect, as do all Intellectual static > patterns of value... > > [Arlo] > Can you explain why your ideas about Intellect=SOM are better than Pirsig's > ideas that Intellect!=SOM? Do you think your ideas have better explanatory > power? Offer the possibility for better solutions? What does your MOQ offer > that Pirsig's does not? > > > 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 ___ 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
