DM, Not bad, but here is a troublesome thought. It is one thing for Pirsig to say that it is better for a doctor to kill a germ that to let the germ kill a man. But is that a license to kill? Is it moral for humans to kill of whole species? Especially when the choice to commit specicide is more a matter of human convenience than survival.
I have always been a bit troubled by the idea that it is better for an idea to kill a society than visa versa. What if it is a really bad idea? Krimel --------------------------- Hi Krim Well bad stuff happens, Pirsig does not comment on this much. I'd say that the MOQ does allow for lower levels destroying higher ones for their own low level values, eg rock and bugs versus society and intellectuals. Also I think the higher levels have greater freedom to do what they want with the lower levels. Hence,humans can destroy eco systems for their values and ignore dependencies. Any use? DM ------------------------ > DM > Even overcoming selfish genes you might say. > > All tendencies, few iron laws. Also DQ can clearly > be very destructive, change is potentially dangerous. > > [Krimel] > Perhaps if we stuck to really short sentences, we would never disagree at > all. ;-> > > But just to potentially ruin a good thing, how do you personally reconcile > this with the Pirsig's idea of DQ as "betterness"? > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
