Ron, All,
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Ron Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: > . > > 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. > Jc: Well... I thought that was my contention? Ok, we agree then. Good. It just took a bit of wranglin' to figure it out. > > > > 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: > Jc: I haven't heard it put that way before, but surely I was arguing for the "solution space" as you put it. The MoQ intellect, includes the heart - ethical imperative toward the good. Absolutely, I agree. > > > > 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. > Sadly, yes. Often the case when a people are set free, they don't know how to responsibly hand their freedom at first. But its still better to be free. John 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
