[Michael] No, I can't. Like I said: not until you tell me what you mean by "Light" as it compares to "light." You do this with Quality and quality...
[Arlo] No... actually... YOU do this with Quality and quality. I never have. You have said, both humans and dogs experience quality, but to affirm it as "Quality" takes faith. So what I mean by "light" and "Light" is the same thing. Does it take faith to "affirm" the experience of "light" as "Light"? What you are doing is reducing ALL socio-intellectual patterns to "faith". You might not want to say this outright, but that is at the core of your statement above. [Michael] The dog at the window example is a red herring; it makes the case you are trying to make easily, is hard to argue against and lets you off the hook through a distractive aspects of what is apparently a solid case. [Arlo] In other words, you can't argue against it, so it MUST mean its just me deceiving and distracting. Actually it makes the case clearly, and illustrates how little you understand Pirsig's books. [Michael] But it is only so if one does not examine Pirsig's Quality any further than that. [Arlo] Oh please do. Please use Pirsig to show how my example is a "red herring". [Michael] But Pirsig's Quality covers the dog AND a rock. [Arlo] Absolutely, yes it does. [Michael] A rock is an "inorganic static patter of quality" (and I will let Marsha find the source of the quote, I can't be bothered) [Arlo] Yikes. No worries, yes, Pirsig does indeed say this. [Michael] To affirm that a rock exists for the same reason and the in the same way that a dog goes into the warm light either has to be proven rationally, or it is is affirmed absent proof. By definition, the latter is "through faith." [Arlo] The choices made by the atoms compositing the rock are, compared to a dog's choices (as a biological pattern), ridiculously simple and pedantic. A rock can't "choose" to go into a beam of sunlight, because this is wholly outside the repertoire of responses possible at the inorganic level. Indeed, each "level" in the MOQ can easily be conceptualized as "increasing possibilities of responding to DQ". But you lose me here when you compare "a rock existing" to "a dog going into warm light". How about we say "a rock rolling down a hill" and "a dog going into warm light"? Both are (level constrained) evidence of Quality. [Michael] The only thing you have rational "proof" of is that the dog laid down in the sunlight to apparently be warm. That *you* assign it to Quality as defined in the MoQ... [Arlo] In other words, all intellectual and social patterns are based on "faith". I "assign" my biological experience with "light" to "Light" based an understanding of Light as defined by my physics book. For you, faith, yes? I'm really not sure what your desperation is with faith and theism, and some need to get them to apply to everything, but its way off the MOQ. And as such there is little reason to go on. 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/
