Ron to Andre: Again How does a dissolved point become the overall general meaning of Moq?
Andre: I think the term 'dissolved' is not useful here. Pirsig's MOQ REsolves the FW vs D 'controversy'. (LILA, p 160) Ron: It is an expression of choice that is for sure, and you already stated above that we may follow static choices as we like, is there a better term than freedom? Andre: Well Ron, that is what Dan and I (and Pirsig) are trying to make clear...precisely in what you are saying. The choices I mentioned in my post are determined by static patterns of value. It places Quality in the 'object'.... 'if one does this, one will get that if one does that, one will get this' (cutting corners here but I hope you get my drift). 'But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's behaviour is free'. (ibid) It seems to me that to equate 'freedom' with 'follow static choices as we like' is an example of un-freedom which the MOQ exposes. Ron: But we are discussing freedom within the context of MoQ. NoT SOM. If there is no freedom then the possibility of a MoQ point of view is impossibe right? Andre: Wrong. The MOQ points to the possibility of freedom which is 'determined' ...to the extent that one follows DQ. Ron: Please supply quotes and please do not ask me to read Lila,... Andre: I did and I won't. This is all I have time for now Ron.
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
