.
> John at t-Rexx said:
>
>
> Now, on to the next topic. I have been exchanging private communications
> with John Carl, and he especially liked the following one. Just as a
> reminder, philosophy isn't a chess game for me. I'm not into it to score
> points or out-argue anyone. I'm vitally invested in it, and I'm really
> trying to figure out how things really work and how we can live lives of
> Quality. One of my issues with MOQ has been the relationship of
> intellectual patterns to social patterns. Another has been the issue of
> "betterness" within the intellectual level. Not all intellectual patterns
> are high quality just because they are a notch above social patterns, so
> they're not always more "moral" than high-quality social patterns. So it
> should be all right to be opposed to some intellectual patterns. To that
> end.
>
Ron:
You are hot on the trail. Intellectual patterns must support social patterns
and never under cut them. That's the
Solution space of MOQ intellect.
The problem space is an intellectualism that undercuts and attacks social level
patterns.
>
> John from T-Rexx :
> From my email to John Carl:
>
> Prevailing sentiment on MD has it that you are "anti-intellectual". (They
> say "anti-intellectual" as though it's a bad thing. J) I don't know how one
> would come to that conclusion from your posts, but if you are, indeed,
> anti-intellectual in some respects, you are in good company. Here are some
> of my notes on the topic of intellect from Lila. These quotes show that
> Pirsig's metaphysics wasn't about exalting intellect above all else; it was
> about fixing intellect. But still it seems that the MD forum is still
> mucking about in an intellect that has fallen .....
>
Ron:
John is being accused of being MOQ
Anti-intellectual. He tends toward lumping the problem: SOM intellectualism
that undercuts
Social values with the solution
An intellectualism that supports social level values and seeks to better them
the quote below sums it up well:
>
> Page 309 - The intellectuals of the 60's sympathized with lawlessness
> because they perceived social codes as the common enemy. "But the
> Metaphysics of Quality concludes that this sympathy was really stupid."
>
> Ron:
Stupid is a good word for it.
>
> Respectfully,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Email: [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
