[MD] Emotions' place?

[skutvik at online.no]

Platt and Chris

26 Oct.  Platt  wrote:

Chris before:
> > I'm with Bo. And I would also like to add that that's why I get so
> > angry at Platt and others using the MOQ as an "anti-intellectual
> > reactionary politics" - because I feel that they do just that. By
> > alla the Gods and Stuff Like That - I will not sit here and hear
> > people go on about their anti-intelelctual agenda and use the "DQ
> > card" to escape from reason. Gods how I hate it!

Platt:
> Would you care to expand intellectually on this emotional outburst? 

I don't like being uses against you Platt, your political view I support in 
many ways. Chris use of "reactionary" is way off, he ought to know the 
difference between the left/right spectrum within democratic/ 
parliamentary rules and the real reactionary despotism/fascism.  

I believe you see the value in intellect as the S/O distinction, because 
this is Pirsig's original intention (ref. all patterns he deems intellectual 
clearly springs from the objective, detached attitude) and means that 
"modernity" is the highest static good, only limited by the DQ/SQ 
context it is part of. The danger comes from the view of the MOQ an 
intellectual pattern that will pull the rug from under democracy, 
science, knowledge - modernity meaning that the intellectual level rots 
from the inside and that social value takes over.         

I must stress again that a MOQ with S/O-intellect as its highest static 
level sees the value of intellect not overwhelming its social base, 
checking the tendency of ANY level to go on like the Sorcerer's 
Apprentice (who had learned the magical word to start a process but 
not the one to stop it)

Bo