Quoting ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [Platt] > If I could only make you see that when my cat plops down in the sun it does so > because of SQ, a static pattern of "it's better here,"... > > [Arlo] > Static patterns are after the fact. The "it's better moment" is the Dynamic, > evolutionary movement of the MOQ. Do you really think you (or someone) could > write a formula that would predict with absolute accuracy every movement your > cat makes? Sometimes my cat plops in the sun, sometimes it does not, sometimes > it chases its tail, sometimes it does not, and throughout it all there is my > cat responding to Dynamic Quality, the "it's better here" moment of Dynamic > movement.
You seem to make two assumptions about DQ. First, that if something can't be predicted it must be a response to DQ. Second, if it moves, it must be responding to DQ. Is this correct? > Perhaps now you would answer my question. Could animals ever respond to DQ? > And > id so, describe for me some way they behaved differently then from the way > they > respond now? Let's say 10 million years ago, before "people" but with a world > crawling with animals, what responded to DQ? Describe for me the difference > between then and now with regard to how animals are? I can no more answer these questions than you can answer when animals first became animals, or cats first became cats. But if you read Pirsig's chapter 11 in Lila, you'll find a full explanation of the evolutionary process. > What you are doing is conflating responding to DQ on the socio-intellectual > levels with responding to DQ in toto. Certainly "man" (by virtue of his being > made of social and intellectual patterns, as well as biological and inorganic) > has a wider repertoire of response to DQ than your cat. But, again, elevating > "man" out from the world as the sole respondent to DQ is not only merely > re-entrenching the same S/O dualism, but is indefensible from any evolutionary > perspective (when did "cats" lose their ability to respond to DQ? is > responding > to DQ something that requires uniquely human biology? if so, then did nothing > respond to DQ before humans? if they did, how were they able? did they lose > this biological feature?) Elevating man is exactly what the MOQ does in the evolutionary moral heirarchy explicated in the MOQ. Don't you recall Pirsig's statement that man is absolutely preferable to a fatal germ? Why? Because man is higher on the moral evolutionary ladder. Far from re-trenching to S/O, elevating man is the essence of a value metaphysics. ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
