[MD] aggregates of grasping

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark [Dan quoted] --
>

>
>
> I touched on a statement that Dan Glover made regarding the "indefinable
> place from which we operate" which requires further elaboration, as it
> relates to the peculiar position which man occupies according to the MoQ.
> Here is what Dan said:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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. . . .
>> 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.
>
>Ham:
> The mistake Dan has made, and it's a trap of Pirsig's hierarchical scheme,
> is reducing Value to a "biological" function, thus denigrating its
> "intellectual" significance.

Hi Ham

No, no, no... you've completely mis-read what was written, both the
quote and my subsequent comment... I don't know how on earth you've
come to such an interpretation of my words or of Robert Pirsig's
words. In fact, the RMP quote is saying quite the opposite... it is
specifically DENYING that value is entirely a biological function...
that is what emotivism means.

I'm not going to waste any (more) of my valuable time in explaining
this further as I suspect you are quite blind to my words, as you have
proven in the past. I don't think you "get it" and I cannot for the
life of me understand the reason... but so be it.

Wondering why I even bother,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com