RE: MD Undeniable Facts

From: Platt Holden (
Date: Thu Apr 17 2003 - 15:36:48 BST

  • Next message: Matt the Enraged Endorphin: "Re: MD Undeniable Facts"

    Hi Rich (& Jonathan) :

    > This thing about directly experiencing is more akin to
    > emotions than rational thought though, no? You experience emotions before
    > thought and this is very much like experiencing Dynamic Quality before
    > static quality. The Dynamic Quality is primary to static quality, just like
    > emotions are primary to thought.

    Emotions prior to thought are sometimes described as the four F's--
    fighting, fleeing, feeding and f----ing. Pirsig puts them squarely in the
    biological level. Even the lowliest of animals experiences (we guess
    from their behavior) one or more of these emotions.

    In addition, even the lowliest of animals "knows" what's good for it.
    And so at the lowest levels we see the concepts of good and bad, right
    and wrong, in other words, MORALITY, at work. That most people don't
    see this obvious fact is the result of their belief that morality only applies
    to what people do within a society.

    As you point out, experiencing emotions is much like experiencing DQ
    in that both are pre-conceptual and intuitive. Jumping off a hot stove is
    the fleeing response. But there's more to it. What Pirsig adds (for the
    first time so far as I know) is that this fleeing response is also a moral
    response, one based our pre-conceptual, intuitive and instinctive
    response to low quality

    With the introduction of the MOQ, one might want to redefine the four
    F's to the four F's and DQ.

    > I read an article in Parade magazine a
    > couple weeks ago where it talked about emotions being processed first in
    > the limbic system and some part of it called the amygdala, an almond shaped
    > thing in the brain, being important to processing emotions. Only later (not
    > real long, like a second) does the frontal cortex get involved and thoughts
    > emerge. Perhaps all this metaphysical talk about Dynamic Quality being
    > primary to static quality is really a natural outcome of the way the brain
    > works.

    I don't know anything about the limbic system and all that. (There's a
    biologist in the Forum named Jonathan who knows about such things.)
    But naturally the brain works so as to recognize DQ. After all, it was DQ
    that created the brain.

    > I think it's neat how!
    > materialism and the Metaphysic of Quality dovetail at this point, making
    > me think that both are onto something.

    Yes. The MOQ wraps materialism within its bosom.

    > By the way, I don't know anything
    > about emotivism or Goedel. Are there any good past posts someone can
    > point me to to find out more about them?Thanks.Rich
    Try going all the way back in the archives to the beginning. Or get a
    copy of Lila's Child where the discussion of emotivism is reprinted.
    Goedel can be found in any decent encyclopedia.


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 17 2003 - 15:37:56 BST