BTW Bo (and intelocutors) read this, but beware the loop in your brain ;-) http://xkcd.com/688/ Ian
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Ian Glendinning <[email protected]> wrote: > Bo asked .. > >> 1) Is the DQ of MOQ's DQ/SQ something else than Quality? > > Yes, they both comprise Quality, but DQ is the immediate quality > exprienced in the moment, whereas Quality also ends up fossilized in > various longer lived patterns. > >> 2) If Pirsig said that Quality IS the DQ, will that alter anything? > > Yes, but not problematically, just a definitional problem in what we > say static patterns comprise. > >> 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.? > > What ? No problem at all. It fits inside a strange loop - the MoQ > itself and the intellectual patterns representing it are different > categories. What container logic and which religious authority says it > must be complied with ? (Stop running away from discussions on better > logic Bo) > >> 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? > > In principle yes, but in practice anyone claiming that would have an > argument on their hands to modify their / our ideas. Ideas evolve, > Pirsig says so, and his MoQ supports that beautifully. > > And as John said beautifully Bo, why do you want to cast the MoQ and > intellect in stone anyway. Let's have the courage of our convictions > that the MoQ can take its own medicine, and apply to itself, and not > build concrete defenses agains evolution. > > Ian > 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/
