[MD] Emotions' place?

[Christoffer Ivarsson]

Bodvar, all.



> 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


Yeees. Well, I feel that arguing for a certain political point of view on 
account of it being more dynamic I.e. having/being more DQ etc etc - that's 
dangerous. And guess what it will do to the MOQ:

---

"Hey, you know, capitalism is way better than everything else, because it 
let's this magical force called Dynamic Quality flourish, you know. Man. 
That's awesome!"

"..Go away hippie"

---

DQ can never be used as an argument- because whenever it is encompassed 
within an argument - We aren't talking about it!

THAT'S my problem. And has been for a while now.