[MD] First Division 2.0

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:38 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> 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?

Dan:
Robert Pirsig was responding to the charge that the MOQ is a form of
emotivism. By equating morality (or within the MOQ, value) with
sentiments and feelings, reality becomes as you like it.

>
> 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.

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.

If a person tries to rationalize love, they'll fail. That doesn't mean
that love is undefinable, though. It means that love isn't an
intellectual response to Quality... it is a biological response. It is
like trying to define taste.

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. Just bite into an apple and you've
discovered the answer. Just fall in love and you know it.

Thank you,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com