Dan: Do you really want me to quote from LILA again, Ron?
Ron: Do you really want me to also quote Lila again, Dan? > > 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. Ron: Then connect up that quote with others. You still are arguing for interpetive legitimacy without explaining why your point of view is better and more consistant. It's that simple. You STILL are camping on ONE quote. I can also do the same and claim the same. The question still remains Dan, what are the consequences if one or the other point of view were held to be true? Dan: 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: Only Within the context of the traditional philosphical arguement of freewill vs. determinism. You still are not providing any reasons other than interpretive legitimacy. I'm not the appealing to THE MoQ, I am the one appealing to reason. Which is the one working from a preconcieved notion? 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: 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: Lets be clear, you would be contradicting yourself. Ron: Moral judgements are an exercise > of choice > "static patterns of value and moral judgements are identical."-Lila Dan: You are using choice here in the conventional, static quality sense. Ron: No, Robert Pirsig is that is his quote. Dan: 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: How does static behaviour having no choice, explain the ability of making high quality judgements? 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: Right Dan it constrains your choices, that does not mean when our behavior is controlled by static quality, we are without choice. Our choices are constrained. Key word: choices. You have the choice to pursue being a starting pitcher for the Cubs regardless of your preconceptions that you have no chance or choice in the matter. Exactly why can't it happen, how do you know if you never tried. >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: But your arguement rests on the legitimacy of one quote Dan. How can that be explained as consistancy. Consistancy relies on a chain of reasons. One link does not a chain make. Ron: How is the statement: > "If chemistry professors exercise choice, and chemistry professors > are composed exclusively of atoms, then it follows that atoms must > exercise choice too."-Lila Consistent with your point of view? thnx 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
