Quoting ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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/ >
------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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/
