[MD] First Division 2.0

[David Harding]

Mark,  

Thank you for responding to my previous post which was written to you and which took me a day to write.

If you're not going to reciprocate the courtesy of taking time and care by responding to my writing, then why should I continue to spend my time discussing the MOQ with you?

If you do respond however, I am all ears.

-David.


On Saturday, 3 March 2012 at 9:38 AM, 118 wrote:

> David,
> If indeed emotions are a response to quality as you quote as an
> important statement, then you are creating two categories, one which
> is quality and one which is not (unless you are using this quote
> within a different context). Where do you see the separating line for
> these two categories? Both DQ and sq contain the word quality. What
> lies outside of that?
>  
> Joe, is using the undefinability of emotions, not their static
> representations with words or concepts. That would be just plain
> silly, for an emotion is not a word or a concept, it comes way before
> that. Words are only used to "explain" an emotion, they are NOT THE
> emotion. There is nothing static about the emotion itself, it comes
> before the static. We cannot understand such a thing since it is not
> definable.
>  
> One should read what Joe is saying, not what one is interpreting.
> Your question comes from a projection of your making. This is, of
> course, the problem with words. They are always incomplete, and can
> be misleading, such as the way you interpret Pirsig's quote.
>  
> Mark
>  
>  
> On 3/2/12, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com (mailto:davidjharding at gmail.com)> wrote:
> > Hi Joseph,
> > > DQ is a metaphysical term, indefinable in levels in existence, evolution.
> > > DQ is not non-existent. Behavior follows existence DQ/SQ. Emotions are DQ.
> > >  
> >  
> >  
> > This is contrary to what Pirsig has claimed:
> >  
> > "As I understand it the term “emotivism” is a way of reducing all value to
> > biology, thus making it a part of the SOM universe. The MOQ sees emotions as
> > a biological response to quality and not the same thing as quality. There
> > are many cases, particularly in economic activity where values occur without
> > any emotion." - LC
> >  
> > Why do you see value in reducing the MOQ to an emotional response?
> >  
> > Furthermore, why do you see value in defining the undefinable DQ as
> > 'emotions'?
> >  
> > -David.
> >  
> > 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
>  
>