> [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"?
MP: Ok, then yes, if you are going to tell me the atoms of rocks choose to be that of rocks rather than of dogs because of light, yes, it takes some faith. Unless you have some proof of this outside your intellectual constructs. Again: faith = affirmation absent proof. > [Arlo] > What you are doing is reducing ALL socio-intellectual patterns to > "faith". MP: No, you are saying this, not me. You are saying this in an attempt to discredit what I am saying for static reasons. You seem to think I'm seeking to "bring MoQ down" in some theistic flanking assault; static reaction, IMO. I'm saying if you are going to claim as fact something you can't prove, but that can be proven to be otherwise through reason (science) then you are in the realm of faith. I'm saying if you are going to attack theism on the grounds that it is based on faith, you had better check MoQ's own skeletons in this regard. There's far greater criticisms of theism that its reliance on faith, especially in comparison to MoQ. By Pirsig's own admonition MoQ is an SOM pattern of thought, and by his own admonition MoQ makes claims which cannot be defined (Quality can't be defined, ergo can't be proven). By definition, this requires a degree of faith to hold the MoQ as valid. > [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. MP: No. I'm not arguing against Quality. I understand exactly what you are saying about it and even agree with you about quality --> Quality, light --> Light. That's the irony here; I'm on your side. > Actually it makes the case clearly, and > illustrates > how little you understand Pirsig's books. MP: Maybe, maybe. > [Michael] > A rock is an "inorganic static patter of quality" ... > 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. MP: Atoms in a rock are making choices? Uh huh. And you can prove this is the case rather than the commonly accepted scientific explanation of the behavior of atoms? > [Arlo] > I'm really not sure what your desperation is with faith and theism, > and some > need to get them to apply to everything MP: I'm not applying faith to everything, you've leapt to that conclusion based on a failure (or is it reluctance) to accept my point. > [Arlo] > , but its way off the MOQ. > And as such > there is little reason to go on. MP: Apparently reason has left the building, yes. But if your goal is to get me to understand MoQ any better than you think I have, I must say that your static defensive approach does the opposite. What's the purpose? Static defense or greater understanding. MP ---- "Don't believe everything you think." 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/
