[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[ian glendinning]

Sigh ... I'm filing my nails whilst you're dragging the lake.
Ian

On 9/21/06, pholden at davtv.com <pholden at davtv.com> wrote:
> Quoting Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>:
>
> >      Platt, you can't make the moral decision
> > according to Pirsig, which states the intellectual
> > level is the highest static quality.  To be able to
> > hold a dialogue between other people takes
> > intellectual ability.  By reading what they [Ian and
> > Arlo] say and ask in a conversation, is to
> > intellectually have the ability to know what they are
> > clearly saying.
>
> Disagree. The burden is on the writer to make himself clear, not on the reader
> to guess at what the writer really means.
>
> > Yet, you are holding a conversation
> > by yourself.  It's as if what Ian and Arlo are saying
> > and asking does not exist.
>
> Ian asked if there were any circumstances when I would disobey an order of my
> commanding officer. I answered, "In battle, no." When I asked for an example
> in a case that didn't involve battle, he replied with personal insults. You call
> that an intellectual dialogue? Arlo asked if on orders I would shoot
> a dead girl in battle. Does that question make sense to you? Furthermore, Arlo
> admitted he would rather face a firing squad than drop the A-bomb on Hiroshima,
> thus shortening the war which, in spite of the fact that the war ended shortly
> thereafter, he called propaganda. You consider that a rational response?
>
> > You are ignoring their
> > statements and questions, but this is all probably due
> > to your thinking that the intellectual level is purely
> > an individual level, so, when you are providing
> > thought to a dialogue you have cultivated an
> > intellectual habit of talking to yourself.  That's
> > what it seems.
>
> See above as examples of not talking to myself.
>
> >      By the way, dynamic quality has no definition, no
> > boundaries, no concept.  Dq is at the edge of
> > experience before and after static patterns are
> > cultivated.  I would say noticing Dq is to think
> > outside of the box, thus, ones first inclination is
> > conscious decision making.
>
> Disagree. Noticing DQ is not to think at all. It is an intuitive, not an
> intellectual (thinking) response.
>
> > This makes a solider good,
> > especially when war situations call for immediate
> > flexibility and nimble transfer into behavior.  A
> > solider that can't think for him/her self is a robot
> > that will constantly wait for orders in all changing
> > events and in such an environment as war where chaos
> > reins, to wait for orders in every new situation -
> > will kill you.
>
> As you rule you are more likely to be killed if you refuse to obey orders. Rarely,
> under extraordinary circustances, disobeying orders can turn defeat into victory.
>
> > Hence the intellectual ability to move
> > with changing, chaotic events, thus, in Pirsigian
> > terms to have intellectual level above the chaotic
> > level, not allowing chaos to confuse the solider.
>
> Is it DQ or intellect that is best to handle a chaotic situation?
>
> > The
> > solider that notices the good, will be tough minded,
> > intellectually nimble and help convey to everybody the
> > way through a battle.
> > In battle, the way through
> > would be dynamic quality, as the experienced battle
> > must climb beyond the chaotic level to where the
> > battle (chaos) will not be all that remains and
> > biological, social, and intellectual levels will be
> > able stay in pattern.
>
> Here you suggest DQ is best to handle a chaotic situation. I'm confused.
>
> > The solider will maintain
> > static patterns throughout the battle, thus,
> > preserving life, and the only way through such cutting
> > edge events is to notice dynamic quality glittering
> > outside the box of the immediate experienced battle.
> > These are the leaders in any walk of life.  Leaders
> > are those that have the good to contribute to
> > everybody.  The good solider has something good to
> > contribute for the side the solider fights for.  This
> > is the solider that not only follows orders, but can
> > clearly think for him/her self and thus be a leader
> > during those trying times when waiting for orders will
> > only end in the killing of the soldiers.  These
> > soldiers, I would assume, are the soldiers that move
> > up the ranks, become leaders that others depend upon
> > for those strategies and creative ways through battles
> > delivering the good when the dust settles.
>
> Too abstract to be clearly understood. Some specific examples would help
> convey your meaning.
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>