Hello everyone
>From: "Wim Nusselder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: MD Relations between levels
>Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 22:12:29 +0200
>
>Dear Dan,
>
>In your 26/6 17:37 -0500 post you counter my disappointment in Pirsig ("He
>... 'closes up an opening to attack' on his MoQ when interpreted as merely
>an intellectual pattern of value, but leaves countless others. In the
>process it widens the chasm between the empirical and rational modes of
>knowing ... and the spiritual mode of knowing") with a story with the moral
>(in your interpretation) "Sometimes ... it is best simply to rejoice in
>what you have been given.".
>So I should give up (at least this time) my pursuit of spiritual knowledge
>and my hope of using the MoQ as a vehicle and be content with the MoQ as
>merely an intellectual pattern of value? I'm afraid I can't and (as I have
>argued in the "Religion/God ~ MoQ/DQ"-thread) I think no human being can be
>fully human without jumping to the moon(s) of DQ/God in one way or another.
Hi Wim
If you really want my advice, yes. Give up your pursuit. It has been my
experience that the "spirit" which we believe we pursue will find us more
righteous unaware. Just do good.
>
>I would still like to know to what extent my analogy
>"Biological/Social/Intellectual evolution can be seen as a process by which
>weak Dynamic forces at a subatomic/subcellular/individual level discover
>stratagems for overcoming huge static inorganic/biological/social forces at
>a superatomic/supercellular/collective level." is still a valuable
>reflection of 'reality' (intellectual pattern) and/or a meaningful insight
>in your opinion.
This requires a bit of pondering. I'd like to see what others might have to
say and perhaps consult a couple sources. We will see what develops.
>You write "Sorry for the confusion, but sometimes one must work for
>answers. I could attempt to answer your questions but that would do either
>of us little good. We'd just get into a debate. You must answer them for
>yourself, as must we all."
>Isn't a debate (including exchange of experience and stories) a way of
>working for answers together? I will find my own answers in due course and
>will try to explain them to you then, but wouldn't it be 'better' to work
>for and reach them together?
Of course you are right. Most times I read what's written here and grow
confused as well. Notice I said I could attempt to answer your questions but
I seriously doubt I could do so adequately, hence my reticence I suppose.
Take care
Dan
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
