Hello everyone On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 10:39 PM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > Dan: > > Do you really want me to quote from LILA again, Ron? > > Ron: > Do you really want me to also quote Lila again, Dan?
Dan: If you really want to have a discussion, quit being stupid. Last chance. Otherwise, take it somewhere else. I don't have the 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. > > 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: I have repeatedly explained that it is better to be consistent with the MOQ than not. You are not being consistent by claiming we can follow static quality patterns and have free will. That is not what the MOQ says. > > > 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 pre-concieved notion? Dan: In your own words, you are appealing to conventional reason, not to the framework of the MOQ. So you are working from 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: > 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. Dan: No, Ron. The quotes are not mine. They are from LILA. I didn't write them. I am simply agreeing with them. > > 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: No, Ron. It is not. You inserted your own words: Moral judgements are an exercise of choice. Nice try, though. > > 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? Dan: It is a response to Dynamic Quality. > > 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. Dan: The fact that our static choices are constrained negates any sense of free will. Conventionally, we are taught to believe we have a choice of doing this or that. But this isn't what the MOQ is saying. This and that are static quality patterns. And when we follow static quality our behavior is without choice. > > > > > >>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. Dan: No. My arguement rests on the whole of LILA, plus any subsequent writings pertaining to the MOQ. > > 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? Dan: "The reason atoms become chemistry professors has got to be that something in nature does not like laws of chemical equilibrium or the law of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics or any other law that restricts the molecules' freedom. They only go along with laws of any kind because they have to, preferring an existence that does not follow any laws whatsoever." [LILA} Dan comments: Atoms exercise Dynamic choice. They only follow static quality patterns because they have to. They prefer an existence that is free. This is consistent with the framework of the MOQ. 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
