[MD] First Division 2.0

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Andre <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dan:
>
> By equating morality (or within the MOQ, value) with sentiments and
> feelings, reality becomes as you like it.
>
> Andre:
> Right Dan, and we can empirically verify, on a daily basis that this
> position is untenable.

Dan:

Hi Andre... thank you for your reply. Yes, there are different kinds
of satisfaction within the MOQ. I recall reading an article (I'm
sorry... I don't remember where right off hand... maybe Huffington
Post?) recently about a girl who only eats Chicken McNuggets. Period.
Her mother explained that it is the only thing the girl likes to eat
so she feels compelled to acquiesce to the girl's demands.

Obviously, from a health standpoint, this cannot be a good thing. It
is biological satisfaction taking precedence over what most of us
would view as common sense. From my own experience, if a person is
hungry enough they'll eat just about whatever you put in front of
them. And I don't mean hungry because you've missed a meal.

>
> 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.
>
> Andre:
> Right, I have brought this to the fore on many occasions but Joe just keeps
> on keeping on. Annotation 141 is very straight forward about this, as Dan
> says: "The MOQ sees emotions as a biological response to quality AND NOT THE
> SAME THING AS QUALITY"(my emphasis). I would almost suggest to anyone not
> agreeing with this to find their own space to argue this out. It is NOT in
> agreement with the MOQ to equate emotions with DQ...or Quality for that
> matter.
> And, for goodness sake, emotions CAN and ARE defined.

Dan:
I tend to think of Quality (capitalized) and Dynamic Quality as
synonymous. If I were to re-edit LILA'S CHILD I might suggest
capitalizing 'quality' in the above mentioned quote to clear up any
confusion between static quality and Dynamic Quality.

>
> Dan:
> 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.
>
> Andre:
> I refer people to annotation 46 which is in response to Bodvar arguing: "A
> splendid example of intellect's impotence is in describing the taste of
> chocolate". To which Pirsig responded as follows:
> "Not so you can tell someone about it in common language. However the taste
> of chocolate [and I would presume this to be the case about many tastes] is
> a distinct chemical entity that can be defined with precision by flavor
> chemists.(I once wrote articles on this for General Research Laboratories)."

Dan:
Right... defining distinct chemical entities isn't the same as
defining taste in common language. If a person was to read the
definition of the distinct chemical entity pertaining to the taste of
chocolate, they wouldn't know what chocolate tasted like... they would
know how to duplicate the taste... they would know the specific
compounds that are required to taste like chocolate. And they would
still have to sample the distinct chemical entity in order to see if
it really does taste like chocolate.

>
> Thank you Dan.

You're welcome, Andre... and thank you too.

Dan


http://www.danglover.com