Arlo, I have no interest in anything you have to say. Your hyperbole makes you worthless for discussing anything.
Marsha On Dec 1, 2010, at 9:06 AM, Arlo Bensinger wrote: > [Marsha] > No Arlo, I doubt that you want other than to make a fool of me. > > [Arlo] > No, Marsha, I want to understand why you think your ideas about Intellect=SOM > are better than Pirsig's, what does this view offer you that Pirsig's does > not? Does it explain the world better? Does it offer better hope for > improving things? > > Along the way, some things am curious about. You said, "science has the > subject-object defect, as do all Intellectual static patterns of value...". > Do you think any other level has a "defect"? Do you think "defect" is even > the right word, since you think this is an inherent flaw in these patterns of > value. > > Also, Pirsig had written, "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?". Given that this "defect" is endemic of all intellectual > patterns in your view, where Pirsig is calling for a non-s/o intellectual > pattern to replace "subject-object science", what intellectual pattern do you > think should replace "subject-object science" as the intellectual pattern > that should be in command of society, since they are all s/o (in your view), > what differences would you this making? > > 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
