Platt, Your claim is "only man responds to DQ".
Try some simple logic. There was a time when "man" did not exist, so this means either "nothing" responded to DQ before man, or "something" did. You've said "something", saying "animals could respond to DQ but they no longer can". This directly states they could do "something" that they are no longer able to do. I've asked, what is this "something". Speculate. Guess. You've also brought up Pirsig and claimed that "free will" derives from "so far as one is able to respond to Dynamic Quality". Does this mean that DQ-animals had "free will"? Furthermore, you've stated that, in the past, plants could also respond to DQ. I've asked you "how". What could plants do before that they are no longer able to do? Write poetry? Argue metaphysics? Paint? You've also stated clearly that the ability to respond to DQ is something that can be lost, as a species. Does this mean that "man" could one day lose this ability? Now you've changed your tune and are saying that animals could not respond to DQ, only their molecules could. So I ask, could the molecules of an adult cat respond back then to DQ? What was it those molecules could do that molecules today can't? Your recent reply said "mistakes in copying strands of DNA produced abnormalities", are you saying molecules could no longer make mistakes? And are you really now saying that cats could never respond to DQ, only their molecules could? I'll wait for your reply on that one. Here is what you say now. "A cat's response to betterness is simply a result of a cat's preprogrammed value system we normally call instinct. It's a static pattern having no ability to respond to the creative "source of all things" and the "cutting edge of progress." So cat's at one time were responsive to the "creative source of all things" and the "cutting edge of progess"? What did they do when they were? I've answered all your counter questions directly and straightforwardly. Every time you asked about a rock or a road or whatever I answered, clearly and logically. Indeed, I've presented a sound argument for understanding DQ that does not rest on the absurd notion that cats used to be able to do something they can no longer do. Cats, rocks, people, atoms, molecules and plants all respond to DQ but their responses are constrained by the levels their existences entail. Yet you refuse to do the same. You go so far this time as to try the distraction of ridicule at me for having the audacity to think I could "correct" Pirsig. Lordy, how we know He is the Infallible One. No matter, I've tried. 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
