Can you give us a reference in ZAMM or Lila where Pirsig says all this?
Or is this your personal interpretation? If you're going to claim that such
and such is "the MOQ's position," you better be able to back it up with
the author's words.
> the moq's position on warfare also holds that the war must be a high quality
> war, namely that the conditions must be right for a dynamic shift, and that
> the people fighting the war themselves understand the purpose of it and the
> intellectual concept they are fighting for (revolutionary war- independence,
> civil war- unity). one war that doesnt fit this criteria is the vietnam war.
> the idea was to prevent the perceived spread of communism, which many
> americans felt no strong feelings towards. anyway, the reason i got into
> that is because you said, 'pirsig justifies warfare,' and i dont mean to be
> anal about this, but he doesnt justify warfare unless there is a mass
> migration of people and society towards dynamic quality.
Incidentally, your posts are hard to read because you omit capital
letters. One has to work to determine where one sentence ends and
another begins, and proper names are not easily identified. This puts
an extra and unnecessary burden on the reader. Is there a reason for
your writing style?
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - email@example.com
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:18 BST