hello,
while I am a member of the moq.org mailing list, I'm not Dan and I didn't
write any of this so I think you have the wrong email adress. sorry
>From: "Richard Budd" <rmb007Q1@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD Pirsig's letter - A response
>Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 14:24:05 -0500
>
> Hey Dan,
>
>You Wrote:
> "...following Struan's "right on
> > the money" argument a one dollar bill and a five dollar bill are equally
> > worthless (to Struan) and therefore neither is better than the other.
> > While it is true that five and ten pound notes are "worthless" here in
> > the States as legal tender I've yet to find any of them dumped in the
> > trash can."
>
>RICK:
> Although it doesn't take away from "the Skeptic's" point, I actually
>disagree that a five dollar bill has no value in England. Like you pointed
>out, no one in England is dumping American currency in the garbage. They
>would simply exchange it for the pounds that represent the English
>equivalent of the amount of value that the dollars represent. While you
>cannot usefully import the currency of one nation into another, the value
>that currency represents transcends all political borders. The five dollar
>bill still has its monetary value in England, the only distinction is that
>in England, dollars can only be used to buy pounds of equivalent monetary
>value.
> However, I think you might have misunderstood what I meant when I
>wrote
>the comment you address here (or maybe I have just misunderstood your
>response). What I meant was that everyone holds some things more valuable
>than others. What those things are would be different to everyone. To
>Struan a five pound note is more valuable than five dollar bill, to us,
>it's
>the reverse. To some, a stack of cash is more valuable than a Van Gogh,
>others would rather have the painting. Some value freedom over security,
>some value experience over education, some value comapnionship over
>solitude... you get the point. Irrespective of the actual "things" being
>valued, everyone values some "things" more than other "things".
>
>DAN:
> > "To answer your question, yes, I have met those who would deny some
> > things are better than others. Everyone, as a matter of fact.
>
>RICK:
>EVERYONE would deny that somethings are better than others??? That's bold.
>Anyone care to jump in and comment here?
>
>DAN:
>By our very act of perception we use a static filter (what Struan might
>call
>a
> > built in quality detector) to block out irrelevant and inconsequential
> > data which would otherwise overwhelm our senses. It's not that the data
> > we perceive is "better" than the data we do not, but rather we are
> > preconditioned to perceive."
>
>RICK:
>I'm don't think I fully agree with this line of reasoning. On the
>contrary,
>what kind of "Quality detector" would it be if didn't detect Quality
>(betterness) in what it perceives. Your theory seems to make it more of a
>"qualities detector", simply picking up on those qualities it has been
>preconditioned to perceive. Think about the hot stove example... when you
>sit on hot stove you don't pick up the fact that your flesh is being burned
>because you have been preconditioned to do so. You pick up on it because
>it's REALLY better not to be burned. True, there are those who can
>(amazingly) train themselves not feel the pain of being burned, but these
>people are so exceptional BECAUSE of their ability to tolerate such a
>low-quality situation. And despite the fact that they don't "feel" the
>pain, they still get burned. And almost everyone values life over death,
>feeding over starving, etc....
>
>Besides, the mere fact that humans distinguish totally on the basis of
>preconditioning and not at all on the basis of "betterness", even if
>accepted as accurate, doesn't refute the idea that somethings are actually
>better than others. Is it so hard to believe that there are ways to be
>perceive that are BETTER than those to which we are respectively
>preconditioned?
>
>DAN:
> > For example, is green "better" than blue? Is the light we see "better"
> > than, say x-rays or infrared?
>
>RICK:
>X-rays may not be better than infrared... light may not be better than
>either... but wouldn't our perceptions be of a higher-Quality (betterness)
>if we could comfortably perceive, and therefore derive the benefits from
>seeing all three? It is better to be able to perceive more than less, it's
>better to be able to perceive than not to.....
>
>Thanks for you input Dan; always a pleasure...
>Rick
>
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:50 BST