[DMB]
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.
[Arlo]
I've said before the SOL-ists are trapped in the morass of
"interpretive legitimacy", and this is just evidence of this. I
expected her typical attack and evasion, and so it came as no surprise.
[DMB]
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.
[Arlo]
Precisely. This was my other question, if S/O is endemic of the
Intellectual level, then by definition an S/O pattern would have to
run society. If not S/O science, then S/O what? And how would that be BETTER?
I think its also rather telling that this (the intellectual level) is
the only level these people believe has a "defect". What other level
is "defective"? And I don't mean functioning improperly or needing
improvement, I mean what other level is by definition inherently
"flawed"? You definitely see anti-intellectual animus in all this.
[DMB]
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.
[Arlo]
Exactly right.
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
