Glove,
I just read your post and need some time to digest what you are saying. I would
like to go into this further since you seem to understand where I am coming from
and you still agree with the levels. I am trying to get there!
To let you know, I was referring to J. Krishnamurti. Krish and Pirsig are the
only philosophers I have really studied and I am truely greatful that they are
the ones I have been exposed to. Together, they both make sense yet clash. I
would like to ask more questions of you, but for now I am curious how you would
harmonize the two? Krish talks about never concluding and Pirisig concludes.
Krish stresses observation and Pirsig analyzes. I guess it goes way back to my
original question: what practical value do the levels have?
I see the beauty of the levels, but they have not changed any of my
attitudes/behaviors/thoughts in any ethical situations. Does knowledge of the
levels *ever* give one a greater grasp of a situation. Would Mother Teresa [or
insert name here] have been a better person with knowledge them? If you can
give an example I could be easily persuaded. If not, then how can it be a good
theory if it has no power?
BTW, your "New Scientist" link did not work. I will spend more time later
tracking the article, but do you have a copy you could easily email?
Take Care,
RJS
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
