Pirsig wrote: 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 said: Yes, science has the subject-object defect, as do all Intellectual static patterns of value... Arlo replied to Marsha: 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? dmb says: Again, you're much, much nicer than me. As I see it, Marsha simply defies the evidence and the basic rules of logic. She gives no counter-evidence, makes no argument and her use of terms is at odds with common dictionary definitions. I think Marsha's response displays a complete lack of intellectual quality. I'd characterize it as obscene, as a disgusting refusal to play by accepted standards of morality and decency. And I'm not a bit surprised at this response. I'd be shocked if she did anything else. Pirisg asks a crucial question: "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?" To see that dualistic science and intellect are NOT the same thing, the reader only needs to notice how "it" functions in the second half of the sentence. That pronoun refers to the intellect as a whole while "THIS" refers to dualistic science, which is the dominant PATTERN. The reader only needs to see what "it" and "this" stand for in the second half of the sentence. This is what it looks like when the pronouns are replaced by the nouns they stand for. "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 subject-object science the intellectual pattern that intellect was going to run society with?" Clearly, it makes no logical sense to construe this as asking, "was subject-object science the pattern that the subject-object level was going to run society with?". It makes no sense to ask because a subject-object level would have no choice but to run society with subject-object patterns because no other intellectual patterns would exist. There would simply be no other option. But Pirsig is asking the question. And it is a very big question with a very big answer. He gives us an intellectual level that DOES have a provision for morals. Big time. That's why Marsha's equation is so disastrous. If the intellectual level is equated with SOM, you can't have the MOQ. You're stuck, thus the torn slot analogy. Plus it doesn't make any sense. Thus the idiot mechanics who punch a hole through the cover plate with a cold, careless chisel. > > > 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
