Hello everyone On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 2:14 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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."
Dan:l Do you really want me to quote from LILA again, Ron? > > >>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. Dan: But I have. Repeatedly. > > 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. Dan: All one has to do is to pick up the book and read 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. Dan: If you have and you do understand, then why are you accusing me of blasting you with quotes without any explanation? Do we not use particular contexts to convey overall general meaning? Those contexts must be consistent, and as far as I know, mine are consistent. This is what I see: You have a pre-conceived notion that free will exists. You are sure that you are free to intellectually choose. Yet, the MOQ clearly states when our behavior is controlled by static quality patterns, we have no choice. So you accuse me of being inconsistent rather than reevaluating your own pre-conceived notions. Ron: > 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. Dan: First of all, I am neglecting nothing. I'm the one who told you to read LILA again. I could post the whole book if I thought that would help. Secondly, I understand what you're saying. But it is not consistent with the framework of the MOQ. You are arguing for static quality choices. The MOQ states that when our behavior is controlled by static quality, we are without choice. What is written above does not support your point of view. If it did, then Robert Pirsig would be contradicting himself. Ron: Moral judgements are an exercise > of choice > static patterns of value and moral judgements are identical. Dan: You are using choice here in the conventional, static quality sense. Read the passage you posted again, carefully. Does it say anything about choice? No. You are reading something into the passage that isn't there. Moral judgement is discernment between low quality and high quality. Only when we follow Dynamic Quality are we free. Ron: > 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. Dan: Moral judgement isn't free will. It is the eVALUEation of evidence, or discernment, if you will. Judgement is intellect at work. But it is constrained to the static quality evidence at hand, not free to choose. As I mentioned to Ham, I'd love to be a starting pitcher for the Chicago Cubs. Ain't gonna happen. The evidence at hand constrains my choices. >Ron: > "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? Dan: Being consistent with the framework of the MOQ, for starters. >Ron: > 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. Dan: Of course. And I really do have other pressing matters to attend to. I am both willing and able to explain myself; I think I have; I just fail to see the value in running over the same old ground again and again. Thank you, Dan 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
