> Michael, > Exactly, why call it anything? calling it something lends to the > illusion > of assumption, of entity-ship, of seperation. Pirsig admits to > having > to sin against the idea that Quality is indefinable, that even > calling it > a name is going against what it means. > > Quality is an abstract noun, because they follow the same rules of > grammar > as concrete nouns, often they are percieved of as concrete > entities. > > -Ron
MP: We drift further and further from my point; if Quality is reflex as was said, why bother developing a notion of Quality at all? Why an Mo*Q* not an Mo*R*? I posit because there is an affirmation going on that Quality (as compared to quality) means something more than just the common notion of quality. My point is that this affirmation is not one of reason and evidence. If Quality is reflex, then just call it reflex. But if you can't or won't do that, then Quality is something else. And because it is something else, we are back to either proving Quality (like we can prove reflex) or affirming it through faith in a belief absent proof. MP ---- "Don't believe everything you think." 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/
