Ron, And each step along the way to your "continuity" is an act of interpretation, relative to your static history and the dynamics of the immediate experience.
Marsha On Apr 11, 2011, at 5:56 AM, X Acto wrote: > > > Ron: >> >> Dan, >> In my own opinion freedom from choice >> is like not taking any responsibility for your >> actions. > > Dan: > I'm sorry, Ron, but this simply doesn't make sense. When we follow > static quality patterns we are without choice. That is the ultimate > accountability factor, in my opinion. We either do it or we don't > survive. So what I see you saying is: I have choices so I do not have > to take on the responsibility of doing what is better. I can do what I > want. I can drink only single malt whiskey. That is my choice. > > Now tell me... how can a person argue with that? > > Ron: > Again you are talking about intellectual patterns > and quotes regarding intellectual patterns and applying > it as a an arguement against what John and I are saying > within the larger context of Quality being value and linking > value to choice. I have explained the reasons why I think > this is a truer interpretation. > > You have made the arguement for freedom from choice linked > to dynamic Quality and no choice linked to static Quality and > you do not understand why I see contradiction in that along > with squaring those concepts with the continuity of the remainder > of Pirsigs works. > > You claim that I am not disagreeing with you but with the MoQ > there is only one. That means there is only one way to correctly > interpret it. How else would you make this claim unless you honostly felt you > possesed the interpretation? > > Basically I think that the idea of the MoQ pointing to freedom from choice > is the MoQ pointing to sitting on our ass and doing nothing. > > Which is not what I get when I read Pirsig. > > We are argueing two differing interpretations my own and your own. > I have rooted my explanation in continuity and you seem to have in > interpretive > legitimacy. > > So with this in mind, > > Dan: > I'm sorry, Ron, but this simply doesn't make sense. When we follow > static quality patterns we are without choice. That is the ultimate > accountability factor, in my opinion. We either do it or we don't > survive. > > Ron: > I guess what you dont see is that you just offered a choice as your example > "do it or don't survive" thats a choice. > > Dan: > So what I see you saying is: I have choices so I do not have > to take on the responsibility of doing what is better. I can do what I > want. I can drink only single malt whiskey. That is my choice. > > Ron: > No I'm saying since it is all choice, all the way down, we would do well to > choose > in regard to the perpetuating the choices it requires to exist. I'm saying > that > this is > the explanation of the basis of a moral reality I'm saying that existence is > nothing > but those choices and like you said, the ultimate responsibility, now,,, > How does freedom from choice figure into this context of moral responsibity? > > > Dan: > Now tell me... how can a person argue with that? > > > > 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/md/archives.html ___ 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/md/archives.html
