[Marsha]
I have no interest in anything you have to say. Your hyperbole makes
you worthless for discussing anything.
[Arlo]
I honestly expected nothing more than such an attack. But it proves
my point, and Ron's as well. Thanks.
[Arlo had said, with no hyperbole at all]
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
