Jan Anders to dmb:
Yes, and a gentleman with a sound intellect are pretty aware of that his
intellect is dependant upon the social, the biological and inorganic
level and that these levels must be treated well to ensure the quality
of the intellectual level. Therefore it can be a good choice to release
the intellectual control over the earlier levels sometime in between.
Andre:
Is that all you can produce JA? Is this really your response to the
quotes dmb has presented to you from LILA. Is this realy your response
to the writings of Pirsig? Is this your response to the behaviour, for
example, of every fucking banker in the West lately striking up his and
her bonusses for leading us, ordinary citizens, into one crisis after
another and adhering to the wonderful rule, (now well ingrained in the
banking and financial system and markets) that the losses are to be
socialized (i.e. paid for by the masses)and the profits privatized
(i.e.deposited in one's private pocket)?
No wonder he reflected at and on the end of the twentieth century as
being a moral rustbelt. And this is only one indication thereof. You
seem to support this sort of behaviour.
Don't use the excuse of picking up barladies in the mean time. You seem
to miss the point completely. What you do is propagate the current moral
dustbelt as being morally inevitable and therefore morally acceptable.
And you do this when it suits you. When it suits you because you simply
cannot and will not stop your wife from licking your ears!!! Don't give
us the 'sometime in between' bit JA.
And in the mean time the ordinary peoples of Europe are taken to the
slaughterhouse in an effort to safeguard the disastrous financial karma
it has invoked on itself for present and future generations.
The point dmb and Pirsig are making is the moral goodness of
intellectual patterns dominating social and biological patterns. In
other words it is good for social and biological patterns to be
subordinate to intellectual patterns. Currently some intellectual
patterns are subordinated to serve social (financial) interests. This
seems to be an accepted moral code (which you defend)in the same way
what held the Victorian pattern together.
However, it is just a social code, not an intellectual one. "They called
it morals, but really it was just a social code. As a code it was just
like their ornamental cast-iron furniture: expensive looking, cheaply
made, brittle, cold, and uncomfortable."
And if that is not a nice description of twenty-first century money (as
opposed to the Marxian notion where money was linked to labour... it
being designated as 'frozen labour'which it is). No,mere numbers on a
digital sheet of paper with no connection at all to any form of
experience/endeavour...no connection at all to moral human activity.
And you excuse this because you cannot and will not prevent your wife
from licking your ears? Oh, you have the old Christian excuse: the mind
is willing but the flesh is weak...rust and dustbelt put together...
that's what your response is. Disappointing to say the least.
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
