[MD] Intellectual activity

[Platt Holden]

Hello SA,

>      Platt said:  "I think Pirsig offers a better
> alternative -- morality based on evolutionary
> dominance, beginning with atoms and progressing to a
> higher moral order at each subsequent evolutionary
> level."
> 
>      Ok... here is quality.
> 
>      Platt went on to say:  "Thus jobs for loggers
> trumps the spotted owl..."
> 
>      The owl is not a machine.  The owl has intellect.

In Pirsig's moral hierarchy, intellect is reserved for human beings. 
Animals do not reach that level. They're stuck in the biological realm. 
 
>  Though doesn't think like Platt or I, the owl is able
> to change its' habits, but like the Zen master, the
> owl is very, very ritualistic, probably to contain
> that DQ where no-mind becomes everything.  Yet, this
> argument about owls and jobs, life or $, or since $
> means life to this culture then it becomes a pit where
> life vs. life dukes it out in the boxing ring?  Or am
> I missing something here and we'll just go so far off
> track and never find agreement here.

It's not so much $ as man needs to work to live. And he has to use his 
intellect to survive. Owls and other animals, by contrast, are born 
knowing how to live, instructed (sometimes) by their parents. 

> So I let you
> know right away.  To kill off a species of any animal
> just for $ just seems so wrong.  We need wood.  So
> take some, but don't take it all and annihilate the
> earth while your doing it.  I wish I could see
> cougar's, wolves, and moose in the area I live in, but
> even though they were here, their not anymore - killed
> off.  Deer, turkey, elk, and coyotes almost killed off
> in this state of Pennsylvania for lumber, sport, and
> such, but people went to other states to get more and
> reintroduced them here.  They were dismally gone and
> without them being in other places to put some back
> here, the woods would be soooo empty and quiet, too
> quiet for me.  I like these animals, for beauties sake
> at the very least.

Well, we too are part of glorious nature. And we know nature can be 
mighty rough at times when it comes to competition between species.. 
 
>      Platt went on to say:  "...the life of an unborn
> trumps a woman's decision to abort."  
> 
>      What do we do about stupid people who have
> children and can't afford them so the rest of society
> has to more and more take care of them, yet, these
> stupid people could have wanted an abortion and this
> would have saved a lot more heartache.  Remember
> though, they are stupid so they probably still keep
> having sex for the mere lower level of pleasure, not
> thinking what a child might mean.

Before the advent of the welfare state where stupid people having 
babies were rewarded with food stamps and apartments, the ethos kept 
bastardy to a minimum. Withdrawing incentives to have babies would help 
remove the burden from society. 
 
>      Platt said:  "...limits on government seizure of
> private property trumps funding for unspecified
> "finest" public schools..."
> 
>      What happened?  Is there a specific example you
> can give here?  Seriously... I am always for 'limits
> on government'.

That's exactly what we need -specific examples. What is a "fine 
school?"  Does more money necessarily result in "fine" schools? I don't 
think so. 

>      Platt said:  "...protecting innocents from
> slaughter trumps noninterference in other
> countries..."
> 
>      Protecting innocents.  I'm for that.  You already
> know I want peace over anything, but I have said that
> if anybody came after my wife, child,  or even dog -
> like any kin, even the hemlock tree in my yard, I
> would punch them right in the face especially if
> calling the cops first would not be an option due the
> time I would have to prevent anything happening to
> these loved ones of mine.

You better believe it! I'm right there at your side punching the crap 
out of an attacker. Those who initiate violence within a society to be 
jailed for at least 10 years and forced to work on a chain gang. 

>      Platt:  "...a better life for the poor trumps
> nonthreatening environmental concerns..."
> 
>      Why does the environment and population have to
> be in such conflict?  I think it's because the
> population of people is too large, but I can't really
> do anything about that other than have two children on
> our own and adopt another that needs a home.

IMO the threat of environmental damage is way overblown. The air and 
water in the U.S. today is a lot cleaner than a generation or two ago, 
thanks to technology. Our so-called oil crisis will be solved the same 
way.

>      Platt says:  "...taxpayer standards of propriety
> trump an artist's wish to display pornography at
> taxpayer expense, etc."
> 
>      This one's easy.  I agree with you.

Great. Now if we could only eliminate having illegitimate babies at 
taxpayer expense. :-)

Platt