[MD] First Division 2.0

[118]

Hi Dan,
Thank you for your response.  Some comment below.

Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
Mark

On Mar 2, 2012, at 11:31 PM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Yes indeed, and I can appreciate such Qualification.  Unfortunately emotions are not just what we like.  Our static fixation with the intellect tries to structure emotions within the understandable, but this is in hindsight.  It can be said that the the intellectual comes from the passions, as a "staticfication" of the dynamic.  Emotions are not really any thing, but can create such things.  This the impingement of DQ into sq.
> 
>> 
>> 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.

I would have to disagree.  By "saying" something, we are forming the static, but this only comes after the event.  The event is DQ.
> 
> 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.

Yes, I agree.  They can only fail in trying to define the undefinable.  This includes expressing it as a "biological response".  That is a static label.
> 
> 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.

Yes, of course, but we know things that we cannot define.  Experience is codified by the intellect.  Such codec is not the experience, just like an adventure book is not the adventure.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Dan

Cheers,
Mark
> 
> http://www.danglover.com
> 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