Hi Marsha, Ron --
[Marsha]: > I didn't insert the above reference. Here is the url for the Summary: > > http://robertpirsig.org/MOQSummary.htm Sorry for the foul-up. I reviewed the above reference, which is mostly the author's complaint that LILA was "not as successful as it should be among academic philosophers." His Summary is basically stated in the first paragraph: "The MOQ...is simply a philosophic answer to the question of what is Quality, or worth, or merit, or value, or betterness or any of the other synonyms for good. There are many possible answers but the one the MOQ gives is that you can understand Quality best if you don't subordinate it to anything else but instead subordinate everything else to it." I can state this even more simply: Quality is what is Good, and everything is subordinate to it. A philosopher can't get much simpler than that! Anyway, I did not attribute that quote about the MOQ being a "method of investigation, a tool for a more accurate perception" to you; I just assumed it came from the MOQSummary source. Evidently it did not, and this was either Ron's own comment or that of some other reviewer. In either case, I stand by the criticisms I made. Regards and apologies, --Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
