Hi Joe, On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 5/22/11 2:36 PM, "Andre Broersen" <[email protected]> wrote: > <snip> >> Joe: >> Emotions DQ format SQ intellect for intelligibility. >> >> Andre: >> You seem to be reducing all value (DQ) to biology Joe. This is called >> 'emotivism' and it is part of the SOM universe. By your reasoning all sq >> derived from an emotional DQ turns intellectually intelligible. Therefore >> intellectually intelligible emotions are sq. >> >> This is so far away from Pirsig's MOQ that I cannot see any point in >> furthering this conversation with you Joe. More so because you have >> repeatedly >> stated it. > <snip> > > Hi Andre and All, > > I am sorry that we disagree about evolution! My approach is to go from the > least complicated to more complex issues. Free will in DQ/SQ evolution is > one hell of a complicated issue. The foundation for evolution in DQ/SQ > metaphysics seems to be pissing into the wind. Slog on!
[Mark] I assume that I am included in the All you write to. We do not disagree about evolution. You are not alone against the many. Everything starts as the simple, take for example the theory of the primordial soup. This is a standard biological approach, aka evolution. Free will is simple, but we can make it as complicated as we want. Your metaphors concerning pissing are somewhat obscure. Could you explain? Slog on is the same as Keep on Truckin' This was the phrase when Pirsig was much younger, which is why I used it to start a thread with John, who was around at that time. > > Logic in the intellectual level is misshapen, lopsided since it is only > defined logic. There seems to be no indefinable DQ foundation unless it is > coupled to DQ from the emotional level woman-man. [Mark] Yes, typically logic is considered from the defined at least at the social (communication level). Lopsided indeed, but necessary for interaction. Don't you think that DQ exists outside the woman-man level? Or do you consider it to be man-made? This may be the defined DQ you are referring to. Indefinable implies without foundation IMHO. > > The movement from DQ Emotions to SQ intellect sets the stage for a yes or > no, defined/undefined SQ/DQ statement of reality. In this way emotions and > intellect have a no and yes common tie. Emotions, yes reality no structure, > DQ undefined. Intellect, yes structure defined SQ/DQ, no separated DQ > reality. Evolution in consciousness DQ/SQ to higher emotional and > intellectual levels adds cement DQ, a higher level, to the gravel of DQ > emotions. Imho [Mark] Yes, many others have brought in the analogy of the binary system in this forum. The computing cloud is often used to analogize DQ. I would agree that it is either DQ or SQ, and I think that was Pirsig's original intent when he created MoQ.. I am more than happy to split Q up into smaller levels, I have suggested making three from the two. Cement DQ could work. You need to be careful since you are going a long way towards defining DQ. I know this is not your intention, but you could be misinterpreted. Geeze, welcome to the club. > > Joe > > > 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 > 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
