Hello Heather! You are perfectly right in that one should not try to fit the MOQ into, or harmonize them with the SOM - why should one? Science doesn't suffer from resting on a MOQ basis, so it has no reason to complain, only to celebrate - since it now will run smoother, and the continuing search for understanding will be provided better tools. Surely you must agree that science would be better of proceeding on a MOQ basis? Of course we cannot analyse Dynamic Quality (indeed even the name is an inadequate description) but we must nonetheless continuing analysing, and try to understand our world must we not? From an intellectual point of view at least that seems the highest Good I'd say.
--- Matt! I liked your introduction, and I for one think that blogging could be a good thing in this case too. One of the main questions that has to be asked though in regards to, well, both us here and of Pirsigs work in general - who do we wish to reach? The natural response is of course "everyone" but where to start? I have no clear thoughts on this matter at the moment, I for one will spend most of my time at the university I think, and Anthony certainly has chosen the academic path very successfully - a good thing I feel. But as I said, the best approach to this may be a double edged one. 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/
