Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?

From: PhaedrusWolf@aol.com
Date: Tue Dec 07 2004 - 20:12:17 GMT

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD Is Morality Relative?"

     
    In a message dated 12/6/04 6:11:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,
    elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk writes:

    http://www.moq.org

    Platt Holden; 'Where intellect dominates, the byword for individuals is "Is
    it logical?" and/or "Is it scientific?" ' I agree with this; I agree that
    this is the nature of intellectual domination; that this is what is commonly
    understood by 'intellectual' and, moreover, that this is what Pirsig has in mind
    in describing the fourth level of the MoQ as intellectual. So the values of
    the fourth level, on this conception, are precisely intellectual values -
    whether something is logical and/or scientific. It is this conception of the
    fourth level that I believe to be misconceived.
     
    Hi Sam,
     
    This is the grounds on which I believe dmb attacked me on when I stated the
    MOQ is anti-theist and anti-intellectual as either hold the one and only
    truth. Evidently, dmb saw the intellect as stated above, when I thought he may
    have seen it as eudaimonic.
     
    On hind sight, I think he was insulted by the use of the word intellect in
    the same terms as the use of the word theist; that the intellect, through
    scientific and logic is superior to total social patterns, and not the eudaimonic
    intellect you are speaking of.
     
    I would agree with you that the intellect as defined above is sorely lacking
    of DQ, if this is all it means.
     
    My favorite quote along these lines is one from (George) Bernard Shaw;
     
    "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
    persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends
    on the unreasonable man."
     
    So dmb saw (sees) the intellect as the ability to reason through science or
    logic?
     
    I did not see the intellect as limited to Science (or academics) or academic
    logic, as this logic is taught, it is a static pattern within itself if you
    do not go outside the logic, or common sense taught in the 'Bricks and Mortar
    Universities.'
     
    I saw Pirsig's intellect as going well beyond this, and he did as well in
    ZMM. So I logically :o), assumed that his combination of the intellectual level
    and biological level in the mind, or subject did not limit intellect to the
    definition above. Obviously I was wrong, and this is what got dmb's feathers
    ruffled; he does.
     
     
    Did no one challenge you as to this is what he meant, eudaimonic, as opposed
    to the logic/science intellect? Intellect on these terms is obviously not
    the highest level as someone stated, it would only be a subdivision of
    eudaimonic.
     
    I guess I read too much into things.
     
    Thanks for the clarity.
     
    Chin

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 07 2004 - 20:15:29 GMT