[MD] Sex, Rape and Law in a MOQ

[John Carl]

Well Andre, I agree that there's a mess.  But I differ with you as to the
cause of the mess.


Well John, from Pirsig's MOQ perspective you are very much confusing things.
> So long as you realise it is your interpretation that is fine but, as said
> it has little to do with Pirsig's MOQ. And I want to discuss his MOQ and not
> yours.
>
> I have tried to place annot.141 in the context of the James-Lange theory to
> understand it.


See?  Now that sounds like a source of messiness to me.  Anything that needs
a complicated theory in order to understand it, is what I'd call "a kludge".


> To find out where Mr. Pirsig gets the notion from which leads him to argue
> that emotions are a biological response to quality. I can either accept or
> reject this. If I reject it I reject that part of Pirsig's MOQ with all the
> implications thereof as you do. And, honestly I think you are making a mess
> of it by your obvious rejection.
>
>
Obvious and explicit rejection, Andre, and its the explicitude that makes
all the difference.  Arlo says it's ok to disagree, just as long as I argue
correctly (in this case) against Pirsig, rather than AS Pirsig thinks.

My justification stems from the argument that everybody has their blind
spots.  Pirsig's blind spot, like many extremely intellectual persons I
know, is in the areas of social and emotional.  He admits as much in his
books, Andre, so why is this so objectionable to you?

Never mind.  I'm pretty sure I know already and besides, you want to discuss
Pirsig's MoQ, not mine.

Do so then.  Defend it.  Use your James-Lange theory or whatever you've got
in your intellectual toolbox to actually make a comprehensible argument
besides "RMP sez so".  Right now you haven't cleared anything up
whatsoever.

"Emotions are biological responses" is tautologically meaningless.

 taught o' logically yours


John