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: Being picky, resolved does have similar meanings but I connected dissolved to this quote: "The problems of free will versus determinism, of the relation of mind to matter, of the discontinuity of matter at the sub-atomic level, of the apparent purposelessness of the universe and the life within it are all monster platypi created by the subject-object metaphysics.' Lila 8 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: I see, you want to use static and dynamic within the context of patterns of value and you feel you cant do that accurately given the general overall meaning of betterness and freedom applied to both. Lets not forget we are talking about meaning and like all meaning it's relational and builds apon basic primary general meaning of terms, all I'm saying and I contend Pirsig is saying, is the most basic general meaning of Quality is "betterness" and betterness is what creates the world we live in every last bit, it is the basic unit of ethics apon which all reality is based apon. Betterness is the pull towards greater levels of freedom...therefore all reality is a migration toward greater levels of freedom. Is this so unreasonable? 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: See we are now talking about freedom which is determined. and meaning is begining to devolve...in the context of the arguement. Are we now discussing the possibilty that Dan is talking about freedom being determined? thats kinda going against his arguement with me. To me freedom determined is similar to undefined betterness, which he is having none of. Thanks for picking up the conversation Andre and thank you for considering my point of view I appreciate that. 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
