[MD] [Bulk] Re: the story of "me"

[X Acto]

Ron to Andre:

Again How does a dissolved point become the overall general meaning of Moq?

Andre:
I think the term 'dissolved' is not useful here. Pirsig's MOQ REsolves the FW vs 
D 'controversy'. (LILA, p 160)

Ron:
Being picky, resolved does have similar meanings but I connected dissolved to 
this quote:
"The problems of free will versus determinism, of the relation of mind to 
matter, 

of the discontinuity of matter at the sub-atomic level, of the apparent 
purposelessness 

of the universe and the life within it are all monster platypi created by the 
subject-object metaphysics.'
Lila 8

Ron:
It is an expression of choice that is for sure, and you already stated above 
that we may follow static choices as we like, is there a better term than 
freedom?

Andre:
Well Ron, that is what Dan and I (and Pirsig) are trying to make 
clear...precisely in what you are saying. The choices I mentioned in my post are 
determined by static patterns of value. It places Quality in the 'object'.... 
'if one does this, one will get that if one does that, one will get this' 
(cutting corners here but I hope you get my drift). 'But to the extent that one 
follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's behaviour is free'. (ibid)

It seems to me that to equate 'freedom' with 'follow static choices as we like' 
is an example of un-freedom which the MOQ exposes.

Ron:
I see, you want to use static and dynamic within the context of patterns of 
value and you feel you 

cant do that accurately given the general overall meaning of betterness and 
freedom applied to both.
Lets not forget we are talking about meaning and like all meaning it's 
relational and builds apon
basic primary general meaning of terms, all I'm saying and I contend Pirsig is 
saying, is the most basic
general meaning of Quality is "betterness" and betterness is what creates the 
world we live in
every last bit, it is the basic unit of ethics apon which all reality is based 
apon. Betterness is the pull 

towards greater levels of freedom...therefore all reality is a migration toward 
greater levels of freedom.
Is this so unreasonable?

Ron:
But we are discussing freedom within the context of MoQ. NoT SOM. If there is no 
freedom then the possibility of a MoQ point of view is impossibe right?

Andre:
Wrong. The MOQ points to the possibility of freedom which is 'determined' ...to 
the extent that one follows DQ

Ron:
See we are now talking about freedom which is determined. and meaning is 
begining to devolve...in the 

context of the arguement. Are we now discussing the possibilty that Dan is 
talking about freedom
being determined? thats kinda going against his arguement with me. To me freedom 
determined
is similar to undefined betterness, which he is having none of.

Thanks for picking up the conversation Andre and thank you for considering my 
point of view I appreciate
that.