Steve, All. 12 Jan. you said:
> The answer to your question I did not ask any question, but simply showed that the very problem that Phaedrus identified as SOM - and what the MOQ is supposed to resolve - is perpetuated by the Quality/MOQ "meta-metaphysics". You, however, continue to cite passages that affirm the fallacy - like Ron you think this "wikipedian" tactics will work. I guess it's useless but now I'll pose a few questions. 1) Is the DQ of MOQ's DQ/SQ something else than Quality? 2) If Pirsig said that Quality IS the DQ, will that alter anything? 3) How do you manage to make the MOQ fit inside a smaller part of its own (the intellectual level) without violating the container logic.? 4) If there emerges a world view - a metaphysics - that claims that the MOQ is hogwash, is that still one of the countless possible descriptions of Quality? Hopefully Bodvar 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/
