Hi Maggie and Platt.
On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 Hettinger <hettingr@iglou.com>
wrote:
> Happy New Year, Squad!
> I put this message on a web page to use html without messing up Bo's mail.
> http://members.iglou.com/hettingr/pirsig/WhyGood.html
Maggie's piece on Boorstin's "The Seekers" and her comparison of (his
approach to the problem of evil) with the MOQ was a gem, and I go all
the way along with her analysis. It's a tall assertion to make, but
even that monster platypus disappears in its light. Gets a different
slant at least. I have never had the opportunity to ask, or have read
any material on what a "non-SOM" culture's attitude to the so-called
evil is. There is a Norwegian anthro - Frederik Barth - who spent a
long time with a tribe in the inner regions of New Guinea and gave a
radio series on his experience back in the seventies. I will try to
get in touch with him - he recently turned seventy - at the University
in Oslo and pose exactly that question. What made such an impression
on me then was how complete their world view was: even the daily jet
flights overhead was incorporated into their mythos. Even if I apply
my idea that Intellect is equal to S-O logic, non-SOM does of course
not mean non-intellect, merely that their outlook isn't dominated by
the belief that the metaphysical "firewall" is at that position, but
rather entertain some "dynamic-static" version of their own making.
"Platt Holden" <pholden5@earthlink.net> wrote on Sat, 9 Jan 1999
> Hi LS:
> Recently the NY Times reviewed a new book entitled "The Age of Spiritual
> Machines-When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence" by Ray
> Kurzweil
....snip
Platt on Ray Kurzweil's "The Age..." was no less interesting. He
is right, our brainwashed heads nod and we don't hesitate for a
second when reading such statements as the quoted one. This is how
reality IS and how the world has been put together from eternity.
That is, we neither think or say it, but all the same accept it as a
revealed truth. Wow, I must paraphrase David by saying that ..I broke
a sweat... when reading Platt's post. It's like having broken a
secret code and being able to read the "enemy's" messages in plain
text.
Lithien asked how such a book could have been written without the
subject/object split and Platt correctly answered that it couldn't
have. I will only add that IMHO the S-O split may well be employed,
but with the MOQ qualifications Kurzweil's preface would have been
completely different. Seeing the S-O dichotomy as one static level
subordinate to the overall value- or moral system changes it all.
Thanks both of you for doing some reading and thinking while
others deliver their answers in half an hour's notice. I have by the
way been reading the special issue of Scientific American on
Intelligence (was it Diana who recommended it?) and if the AI issue
comes up as "program" I'll post a piece on some MOQ-affirming
findings therein.
Bodvar
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:49 BST