Dan: By equating morality (or within the MOQ, value) with sentiments and feelings, reality becomes as you like it.
Andre: Right Dan, and we can empirically verify, on a daily basis that this position is untenable. Dan: Emotions are a biological response to Quality. We say: I feel happy... I feel sad... I feel angry... I feel love. Key word: feel. These are all biological responses to Quality, not Quality itself. Andre: Right, I have brought this to the fore on many occasions but Joe just keeps on keeping on. Annotation 141 is very straight forward about this, as Dan says: "The MOQ sees emotions as a biological response to quality AND NOT THE SAME THING AS QUALITY"(my emphasis). I would almost suggest to anyone not agreeing with this to find their own space to argue this out. It is NOT in agreement with the MOQ to equate emotions with DQ...or Quality for that matter. And, for goodness sake, emotions CAN and ARE defined. Dan: What does an apple taste like? We cannot intellectually define taste any more than we can intellectually define emotion. That doesn't mean that taste is undefinable though. Andre: I refer people to annotation 46 which is in response to Bodvar arguing: "A splendid example of intellect's impotence is in describing the taste of chocolate". To which Pirsig responded as follows: "Not so you can tell someone about it in common language. However the taste of chocolate [and I would presume this to be the case about many tastes] is a distinct chemical entity that can be defined with precision by flavor chemists.(I once wrote articles on this for General Research Laboratories)." Thank you 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
