> Hello everyone
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:38 PM, 118 <ununoctiums@gmai...> wrote:
>> 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?
> 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
> 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,
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.