John, There are contributors to this site who don't believe in Quality who have plenty of interesting things to say. So far as I know the only requirement for participation is having read ZAMM and Lila. To restrict the conversation just to true believers would turn the MOQ into a cult, an accusation that is already too frequently voiced.
Regards, Platt On 10 Jan 2010 at 10:31, John Carl wrote: > Platt, > > I agree that going over basic assumptions is a highly valued intellectual > activity, otherwise, what is a metaphysics discussion even about? > > But I do think going on and on in subsequent directions of discussion, > without addressing the basic conflicts is a kind of waste of time. > > I mean, what is there to discuss if you don't believe in Quality? > > How to spell "Schopenhauer"? > > Regards, > > John > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Platt Holden <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hey John, > > > > I don't consider challenging basic assumptions to be a waste of time. In > > fact, to me that's what philosophy is all about. For example, Pirsig's MOQ > > challenges the basic assumption that the world is divided into subjects and > > objects. Many philosophies challenge the assumption of scientific > > materialism. Such challenges can generate new ideas and broader > > understanding. > > > > Regards, > > 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/
