Wim and all,
Wim wrote:
Do I understand rightly (from your 2/7 9:48 -0700 post to Marco) that
your real libertarianism implies that the US should not deploy its
army outside its own borders at all and that a really libertarian
population would boycott US arms manufacturers when they export
But language/imagination isn't Quality's Intellect, we may safely
assume that cave-dwellers spoke as complex (grammatically) a
language as ourselves,...
I don't think thats a safe assumption really, what are you basing that
assumption on?
One experiment i have read about that is
Hi Wim,
You wrote:
I do thrive on vegetarian food for 25 years now. (I confess I eat meat
maybe once a year when food isn't easily recognisable or properly
labelled as 'carnivores only'.)
My reason for renouncing meat is not that it would be immoral for me
to be instrumental in killing lower
Greetings,
This is by way of an aside on the Emotions question, as I must confess to
not having had a proper chance to digest everything that has been said so
far in this thread, but I feel the following might be of interest (it comes
from an essay I wrote a couple of years back):
Antonio
Hello Sam and all,
I enjoyed the extract from your essay.
From the point of view of the MOQ, any decision is pure quality.
A decision is the outcome of DQ interrupting Static patterns, so analysing
the where and whys before/after the event is going to lead to confusion?
The mind/body split is
Hi Jonathan:
But in the end, Pirsig was glad to get rid of Lila:
Too true. Many moons ago, I stirred things up by suggesting that in the end,
Phaedrus was the posing moralist, slinking off and leaving the real job of
caring for Lila to Richard Rigel.
The elements of hypocrisy that come
Hi Wim Nusselder:
Your wrote:
I'd say: suffering from the limitations of lower levels' static patterns of
value is the negative fact of Quality. DQ is the drive to eliminate that
suffering, the drive behind evolution. Doesn't really contradict Pirsig,
does it?
Suffering as I interpret the
