[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[Heather Perella]

Platt,


     [SA]
> >      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.

     [Platt]
> Disagree. The burden is on the writer to make
> himself clear, not on the reader
> to guess at what the writer really means.

     They asked very clear questions, and made very
clear statements.  What is not clear to you Platt, is
your cookie cutter episode, in which you have this
preconceived notion about what they must be talking
about.  Even though, what they are saying is
straightforward, you search and search, thinking you
know what's going on in their heads, and you try to
analyze too much between the lines.  Notice how you
say, "what the writer really means."  Your searching
beyond the words they typed.  So what your really
saying is what they asked and stated is not what they
really mean, and so the writer must ask and state,
"what the writer really means."  You think they really
mean what they did not ask or state, I guess. 

     [SA]
> > Yet, you are holding a conversation
> > by yourself.  It's as if what Ian and Arlo are
> saying and asking does not exist.

     [Platt]
> 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,

     You didn't ask for an example that doesn't
involve battle.  You said and I quote, "In battle, no.
Otherwise, give me a for instance."  But now that you
state above, "that didn't involve battle."  I guess
that's what you meant.

    [Platt]
> 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? 

     No, that question doesn't make sense, but since
you wouldn't answer his question(s) and respond to his
statements without throwing in weird comments as well,
then this dialogue began to escalate.  Without an
argument from your side to what he asked long ago,
near the beginning of this thread, then I guess you
became an open target to all kinds of assumptions,
Arlo did as well - hence the personal insults on both
sides.  They are personal insults, I guess, because
your philosophy is your way of life.  Nothing wrong
with that. 

     [Platt]
> Furthermore, Arlo
> admitted he would rather face a firing squad than
> drop the A-bomb on Hiroshima,

     Is that the punishment to not following orders? 
The firing squad?

     [Platt]
> 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? 

     Well, that has become a debate now-a-days. 
Hindsight usually does bring out debates, meanwhile at
the time the A-bomb dropped all paths seemed to lead
to dropping the A-bomb, since it happened, but
honestly I don't know what was in Truman's head.  I
know Einstein didn't wanted the A-bomb.  He wrote a
letter.  Patton wanted to go all the way to Moscow he
foresaw a rising monster, so, I'm sure the pressures
of the times seemed very great.

     [SA]
> > 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.  

     [Platt]
> See above as examples of not talking to myself.


     [SA]
> >      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.

     [Platt]
> Disagree. Noticing DQ is not to think at all. It is
> an intuitive, not an 
> intellectual (thinking) response.

     Your right, what I meant is that by noticing Dq
exists outside of ones current static patterns, then,
ones thoughts, ones intellect will be able to notice
something different and try to put that which is
different (dq) into words eventually, to make dq - a
static pattern.  Dq always remains.  I'm just talking
about the code of art.

     [Platt]
> Is it DQ or intellect that is best to handle a
> chaotic situation?

     I haven't been able to split dq and sq.  I just
experience quality.  Maybe it all depends.  At one
moment I'm thinking my way through, and another moment
I'm opening myself up to new ways of experiencing.

     [SA previously]
> 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.

     [Platt]
> Too abstract to be clearly understood. Some specific
> examples would help
> convey your meaning.

     What I mean is, that in battle, if, a soldier
would happen to wait for orders in a situation that
getting very dangerous.  If the soldier doesn't act on
his/her own while the bullets are flying.  If the
soldier has to constantly wait for directives from
somebody else, thus, has become too habitualized into
listening to others too much, and not him/her self
when the meat of action occurs, then this soldier will
probably not move high up in rank.  The soldier that
notices dq, and is able to evade and conquer
situations that arise in battle on a whims notice,
without waiting for orders to come in, then this
soldier is a leader.  This soldier will be noticed, in
time, as somebody that knows how to lead others.  This
soldier could become sergeant, maybe even a general
someday.  Yet, this is probably what the military
tries to do.  The military probably tries to get
people to on the one hand follow orders, and on the
other hand be somebody that can think for him or her
self - thus, be a leader.

SA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com