LS Re: Moral precedence in the four levels

Ant McWatt (
Wed, 19 Aug 1998 18:40:33 +0100

On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 15:49:59 PDT Theo Schramm
<> wrote:

> Greetings,
> As we are officially unmoderated I will enclose my reply to Jonathan and
> Bo which didn't make it through last time. I was going to enclose a few
> words to Ant and yet each time I tried it became more negative. Suffice
> to say that if you read my reply here and my initial post again you will
> see that your accusation of confusing biological quality
> with Dynamic Quality completely misses the point.

I'll re-read your initial post again Theo to see whether or
not does.

> Furthermore claiming that
> intellectuals find it hard to perceive that police etc can have a
> positive effect in controlling the biological level is just plain
> ludicrous.

Some intellectuals, I have met over the last ten years, are
subject to this criticism. When Pirsig wrote Chapter 24,
I would guess that he specifically had in mind some of the
liberal thinkers from the sixties and seventies. Though it
wouldn't be fair to apply such a criticism to all liberals,
I certainly wouldn't call it a ludicrous idea.

> One wonders if you just felt the need to share with us
> your correspondence with Pirsig no matter how irrelevant
> it was.

Yes, I think that criticism can be levelled at some of the
quotes from my e-mail ("In nothingness there...) but I feel
that people interested in Pirsig's work would rather have
these quotes than not. They are shared in good faith. I
certainly appreciate any such unpublished Pirsig quotes
myself from other people (such as Bodvar and Doug Renselle)
as they can often give a fresh angle to a difficult

Speak to you soon,


homepage -
unsubscribe/queries -

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:38 CEST