[MD] Barbarian attack

[Platt Holden]

D. Herbert, 
 
> As I understand this comment there seems to be "something" missing. 
> Where is the "unknown" hiding? In short, if the intellectual values and
> social  values are constantly trying to dominate the other, in the end,
> doesn't  intellectual values rule?

Yes, but as Pirsig explains, subject/object intellect contains a flaw. 
It fails to integrate morality into its worldview.

> I find this very amusing when it's
> looked at...through the intellectual  levels eyes! Basically, if social
> values can be disproved through intellectual  values then it appears the
> I.V.'s are always one step ahead. Also, both  sides are always changing
> as we learn (or adapt) to new knowledge, right?  If this is true than
> wouldn't the I.V.'s gain enough ground to eventually  overtake (or at
> least control and determine what) the S.V.'s? Yet, we still base  our
> I.V.'s on the "current" Social value "feeling". Contrast - extremist
> radicals are Social Values, Western Ideals about the  way the world
> should be are Intellectual Values. Is this what you're saying? (To 
>  some effect?)     

Pretty much, yes. But as said, the intellectual values that form the 
basis of Western ideals are flawed. This is Pirsig's basic criticism of 
the prevailing "scientific" subject/object worldview.

> You also stated:
> "I would  ask, "Since you violated international law by invading us do
> you not see why  we will occupy this land in self-defense? Do you not
> understand that you  brought this on yourselves by illegally initiating
> physical force against  us?" 

> This is a play on words. We can go round and round with this one because
>  which side(s) is asking this questions? I mean, 9-11 seems like a small
> rap on  the knuckles compared to what the USA has done. And who started
> this whole thing  anyway, the chicken or the egg?
 
So you think Islamic religious terrorism is morally equivalent to the  
Western response?   

Platt