[MD] Stuck on a Torn Slot

[118]

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

>
> [Arlo]
> Precisely. This was my other question, if S/O is endemic of the
> Intellectual level, then by definition an S/O pattern would have to run
> society. If not S/O science, then S/O what? And how would that be BETTER?
>

[Mark]
I would have to say that S/O is the product of reflection.  This is where
the intellectual level  in its static form comes in.  That is, rules of
governance.  In its dynamic form, it is free from S/O.  So the question
would be, do we let the static dominate the dynamic?  I would say, that this
will never work.  Decisions made by the intellect are dynamic.  Learning is
dynamic.  The Academy is static due to its dogma.  We do not want MOQ to go
there.  The ties being provided to MOQ with other philosophical labels, is
useful, but they are only analogies.

[Arlo]
> I think its also rather telling that this (the intellectual level) is the
> only level these people believe has a "defect". What other level is
> "defective"? And I don't mean functioning improperly or needing improvement,
> I mean what other level is by definition inherently "flawed"? You definitely
> see anti-intellectual animus in all this.
>

[Mark]
I wouldn't say it is defective, I believe it is misinterpreted.

>
> [DMB]
> But Pirsig is asking the question. And it is a very big question with a
> very big answer. He gives us an intellectual level that DOES have a
> provision for morals.
>
> [Arlo]
> Exactly right.
>

[Mark]
Provision??  I can only say that intellect should be moral; morality does
not have to be intellectual.  This is the traditional Western view of Truth
over Quality; we endeavor to change this through MOQ and put Quality over
Truth.

>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>