Ron: > First off, you are claiming interpretive legitimacy. Case closed, the MoQ says > what it says, end of discussion.
Dan: I am claiming nothing of the sort. You are making the claims here. Ron: Was this not what you said?: "But the MOQ says what the MOQ says. That's what it boils down to. You disagree with the MOQ. And I guess since I agree with the MOQ, you also disagree with me." >Ron: > Dan, you need to explain why you believe you are correct in your interpretation Dan: I'm sorry, Ron, but I don't "need" to do anything. Ron: I'm sorry Dan but you do need to explain yourself if you care about any sort of meaningful philosophic discussion. Ron: > So far you have yet to do so but that can't happen unless you suspend the >notion > that the MoQ stands independently in meaning and is not subject to > interpretation > to each person who reads it. Dan: There is a proper way to interpret the MOQ. I've been over this before and see no reason to do it again. There is nothing in the universe that exists independently, Ron. You know better. Ron: Well then you need to explain to everyone what this proper interpretation is. Obviously you do think it stands independent or else you would'nt be arguing for it. >Ron: > The best way to make an argument is to build a continuity of overall meaning, > linking the application of those general meanings to several contexts via > multiple > quotes. The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with experience, > and economy of explanation. It should also stand up to Pragmatic method. Dan: And if you've been reading my posts (which I doubt) you'll see that I've done all you ask. I know you disagree with me and the MOQ but there is no reason to be rude. Ron: I am only being as rude as you are Dan, I disagree with you I maintain that you do not agree with the MoQ. >Ron: > Just explain why you feel you are correct instaed of beating us over the head > with a quote that you think requires no explanation. Dan: Every quote I've offered is accompanied by my own commentary. Go back and look. I can't help it if you don't understand. I think our discussion is over. I have other pressing matters to attend, and I can see this is a total waste of time. Ron: I have, and I do understand I simply maintain that this does not agree with the general meaning of Pirsigs works I have explained why, that you are using a particular context to convey overall general meaning. You neglect the quote that comes right after the quote you are maintaining applies to THE MoQ: "The Metaphysics of Quality has much much more to say about ethics, however, than simple resolution of the Free Will vs. Determinism controversy. The Metaphysics of Quality says that if moral judgments are essentially assertions of value and if value is the fundamental ground-stuff of the world, then moral judgments are the fundamental ground-stuff of the world. It says that even at the most fundamental level of the universe, static patterns of value and moral judgment are identical. The 'Laws of Nature' are moral laws." I dont think you understand what I'm saying and I do not think you understand what is written above as it applies to choice. Moral judgements are an exercise of choice static patterns of value and moral judgements are identical. Judgement is commonly understood as ability to understand and discriminate between relations, sapience, root sapien to taste the act of judging or assessing a person or situation or event. "If chemistry professors exercise choice, and chemistry professors are composed exclusively of atoms, then it follows that atoms must exercise choice too."-Lila EXACTLY what makes YOUR claims legitimate as THE MoQ and My own NOT? Sure it's a waste of time for anyone unable and unwilling to explain why they feel they are correct on a philosophical forum besides because they say so. 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
