[MD] Food for Thought

[david buchanan]

Ian asked:
DMB, there are also a couple of unresponded posts from you to me earlier in 
this thread. Do you want me to go back, or are we covered by other more 
recent posts?

dmb says:
I have repeatedly asked you and others what it is you don't like or 
understand. I mean, the notion that social quality is aimed at controlling 
biology while intellectual quality is aimed at controlling social quality. 
What's wrong with the distinction between social and intellectual levels as 
it is revealed by this evolutionary relationship? If we reject that notion, 
then the moral codes and the hierarchical structure of the MOQ collaspes and 
it is no longer the MOQ. What I don't get, is why this concept has been 
excluded and ignored in this debate. Why are Pirsig's political discussions 
about the hurricane of the 20th century not employed here? These are 
concrete examples of the clash bewteen the top two levels. It seems to me 
that a person has to dismiss huge portions of Lila to stay stuck in this 
soup.

I mean, what possible reason do you have for rejecting all that? One hundred 
years of Western history and the conceptual structure of the MOQ aren't 
exactly small details, you know? I mean, maybe it would help to think about 
this in more concrete terms. Instead, I see some rather ham-handed 
syllogistic logic. It ususally goes something like this...

Traditional religion is a belief system and Science is a belief system, 
therefore they are the same.

Sorry, but I think that is dumb,  dumb, dumb. And it begs the only question. 
The question concerns the basis and validity of those beliefs systems, not 
whether or not they are believed.

dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Communicate instantly! Use your Hotmail address to sign into Windows Live 
Messenger now. http://get.live.com/messenger/overview