> > > Platt: > > > > DQ is a moral force, NOT mathematical variables > > and operations. > > > > > SA previously: "Mathematical variables and > operations" are > > > moral. The moq states all is moral. > > > Platt: > > Show me where the MOQ says DQ = mathematical > > variables and operations. I'm all ears. > > > SA: Are you heart and nose too? > Anyways... I'll try to read your mind. Let me > know how I do. You state dq is a moral force.
Correction: Pirsig states DQ is a moral force. I agree. > Isn't > quality moral? Isn't quality reality? Isn't quality > substituted by moral and value to mean the same? Yes, yes, and yes. > And > then, now follow this line of thinking, you know it > very well, moral is reality. Yes. Only I would say, "Morality is reality." > Is mathematical > variables and operations not of this reality? They are static intellectual patterns of morality, yes. > If not, > then what are they? How could I even speak them? Of them, you can speak since they are static patterns. . But, please follow me on this: Of some things you cannot speak, as Whitehead said, " . . . dim apprehensions of things too obscure for its existing language." Pirsig says that describes DQ. Ergo, DQ does not equal mathematical variables and operators. > A > pink horse is part of this reality as an imagined > moral. It may be moral, but very low on the scale of morality if you claim pink horses as imagined are as real as mathematical variables and operators. Always a pleasure to converse with you SA. Blue skies, Platt 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/
