Platt, it's not just you.
Simon:
I'm, well, completely flabergasted. I guess that's the only word
for it. I didn't know someone could so entirely ride the fence of
completely understanding something and totally not getting it, but here
we are.
I guess my advice would be to throw out everything
Simon:
I'm sorry, my bad! We were talking through each other and not about
the real problem:
You think there's a foundation to your [social] morals.
Myself, Pirsig, Sartre, Camus, Foucault, and every other existentialist
and post-modernist would, however, disagree. That's not to mention
the
I told myself to be a good little Buddha and leave it alone.
You've said your piece, anything else will detract from
it. Right, exactly. Nit-picking is annoying and just
starts a huge brawl.
But...
There happens to be something I said in my last e-mail (and then repeated
in Platt's MD Summary
Ah, yes. Finally, cerebral tranquility!
Alright, maybe that's a little premature, but I think the issue is
resolved for me.
Maybe not everyone else and I'd still love to hear the debate rage on,
but it seems everyone's pointing at the same thing. And to be
honest, yesterday, before I even
Duckman, I mean ... drose,
I'm curious as to how exactly the ethical requirement quacks like God in
the Something rather than nothing genre of philosophical questions.
Here's the deal (pretend that I know):
You said that God is analogous to DQ.
How exactly, or rather, in what sense are you
Wim,
The first time I read your post I thought, Yeah, that's what
essentially everyone else has been saying. I left it, read
drose's, wrote a post, went back to re-read old posts to make sure I
didn't miss anything, and heaven forbid, there it was:
You asked me a question. Or, rather, to
Oh, Reason give me faith.
Andrea, Clarke:
Andrea, what I think you're thinking of when you say,
I recall that somewhere in Lila he
equates evolution and DQ (at the biological level).
is in Ch. 11 when Pirsig says, All life is a migration of static
patterns of quality towards Dynamic Quality.
Note to all: there's a hidden section at the end that has nothing to do
with God, but with the plight of this discussion group. If you find
it you get a prize!
Now, onto God.
Wim, as you have probably have learned Ask and you shall
receive:
(Not promptly, though, because my computer completely
To, well, anyone that's still listening. I'm a little late on the boat,
but my computer's been down.
At the beginning of this Evolution-discussion, naive evolutionists were
brought up. I thought it was an interesting name and, obviously, I took
slight offence since they were directed towards
Ya' see?
This is why I don't like to take part in discussions of religion and the
like. It's why I find it quite fultile and not illuminating in any
way (where I take something positive away from it).
A lot of It's not really that way, it's really like
this.
And I just love being told what
Ahem, (clunk, clunk), is this thing on?
Oh! It is.
Well, (cough), it's been awhile and, while I don't have any great
insights, I thought I might take a stab at some of your (Brian) Quality
questions. Mainly just to stretch and make sure I don't sprain
anything.
Brain wrote:
It seems that
Stephen,
One thing that bugs me
about the MOQ ... is why the MOQ gives no footnotes to any research
if it where re-edited as a MOQ without the
character development parts (which
could be annotated) it would be easier to refer to in these discussions.
Ya' know, a lot of people have complained
12 matches
Mail list logo
