Paralyzed I tells ya,
The Grammatical shift in contextual meaning has created a split In MoQ that no one can put their finger on but was and is The source of perpetual conflict in understanding MoQ in a cohesive Manner. Consequently we get caught up in arguments of meaning Favoring either an abstract interpretation or a concrete one, never The twain meeting contiguously in a cohesive whole understanding. What is MoQ? Is a good koan to illustrate this distinction in our language. Cohesively then Quality is dynamic. (abstract) the first division or setting of limits for purposes of conceptualization and linguistic meaning is DQ/SQ an assumed referent to place a more complex break down of descriptive terms (concrete) the four level hierarchy which gets more and more specific in concrete terms. Since SoM only deals with concrete terms MoQ ventures into, co-habitates and emerges within SoM principles. What brought this to my attention was Bo trying to define This phenomena by following the concrete terms through To the abstract meaning giving him the impression that MoQ in abstract terms constituted another level of Quality. This really seems the case when coming from The concrete perspective that Pirsig sets us in. "he remembered that Franz Boas had said that in a primitive culture people speak only about actual experiences. They don't discuss what is virtue, good, evil, beauty; the demands of their daily life, like those of our uneducated classes, don't extend beyond the virtues shown on definite occasions by definite people, good or evil deeds of their fellow tribesman, and the beauty of a particular man, woman or object. They don't talk about abstract ideas. But Boas said, 'The Dakota Indian considers goodness to be a noun rather than an adjective.' That was true, Phaedrus thought, and that was very objective. But it was like an explorer noticing that there's a huge vein of pure yellow metal emerging from the side of a cliff, jotting the fact down in his diary, and then never expanding on the subject because he's only interested in facts and doesn't want to get into evaluations or interpretations. Good is a noun. That was it. That was what Phaedrus had been looking for. That was the homer, over the fence, that ended the ball game. Good as a noun rather than an adjective is all the Metaphysics of Quality is about. Of course, the ultimate Quality isn't a noun or an adjective or anything else definable, but if you had to reduce the whole Metaphysics of Quality to a single sentence, that would be it." -Lila pg 191 Ron: Good as a noun rather than an adjective is all the Metaphysics of Quality is about, He was on the verge of putting his finger on it At the end of Lila. What better describes the situation is that Good is a noun that has abstract and concrete meaning. With the Focal point of MoQ being that abstract terms exist as equally as concrete terms. In fact this was eluded to with how aboriginal Cultures using nouns that express abstraction via adjectives, nouns are strictly concrete in meaning, see how he flips the context Once more at the end when he states that Quality is a noun not an adjective, I bet he is saying that Quality carries the meaning Of an abstract noun when used in concrete context. "Of course, the ultimate Quality isn't a noun or an adjective or anything else definable, but if you had to reduce the whole Metaphysics of Quality to a single sentence, that would be it." Quality splits into DQ/SQ when used as a noun. Abstract/concrete per grammatical use. Now exploring Quality as a verb in terms Of tense of past present and future aims towards how DM uses actuality and possibility to discuss potential. In some ways It introduces active dynamism in discussions involving concrete nouns.. . 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/
