I'm afraid to disagree with Dan? Strawman!!! I have no intention of defending a nonsensical, unsupported misstatement.
On Apr 11, 2011, at 6:24 AM, X Acto wrote: > Quite right Marsha it's all we have, > > > explain that to Dan > > wait, no you wont because you are too afraid to disagree with him. > > why is that? > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: MarshaV <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Mon, April 11, 2011 6:16:11 AM > Subject: Re: [MD] Freedom from choice > > > 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
