Hi Andre, One cannot say that emotions are not the same Thing as Quality since Quality is not definable as such. Neither are emotions, since the static labels for it are not the emotions. We must look to causes, and not confuse them with effects. Static representation is an effect. Joe is pointing to cause, in my opinion.
My arguments are well within the bounds of MoQ, but perhaps you can see a flaw in my logic. I would be grateful to having that brought to my attention. Just because emotions result in definitions does not make them the definitions, does it? If that were true, we would be trapped in sq, which we are not. Respectfully Mark On Mar 3, 2012, at 6:53 AM, Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 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
