[MD] Bo's right! For all the wrong reasons? (Part2)

[MarshaV]

On Aug 2, 2010, at 2:03 PM, David Thomas wrote:

> Hi Ian,
> 
>> But isn't that just the "little knowledge" argument Dave ... is a
>> dangerous thing.
>> 
>> Clearly, in the wrong hands the ill-advised with ill-intent, could do
>> a lot of moral damage with ... just about anything.
>> 
>> My view is pragmatic. Name a preferable metaphysics, or working
>> world-view / model, or suggest why giving up seeking to find
>> improvement is preferable to "what the heck, it's not worth the effort
>> of managing the risks".
>> 
>> I've no illusions over the MoQ's imperfections, and Pirsig's
>> imperfections are manifest, but ... so ... what ...
> 
> I guess what scares me is the rigid structure of moral dominance with the
> intellectual level seen as the highest level of static good coupled with a
> mystical, undefined, quasi-religious DQ  and pragmatism could lead to
> newness of ideas by default being equated to goodness of ideas. I think this
> is what happened in part with the application of Darwin's work to societies
> prior to any real understanding of it's consequences.
> 
> Dave


Greetings Dave,

Would you please elaborate on your phrase "quasi-religious DQ" ???  
It seems you've used a very negative connotation without explanation.  

Meditation might be useful as a scientific tool to study first-hand the deeper 
states of knowing.  But of course, if you prefer regurgitating second & 
third-hand texts to first-hand study, I don't think you can gripe about what 
you are too lazy to know for yourself.  


Marsha 



 
___