Hi Marsha, On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 3:05 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > I have my interpretation of the MoQ, and where it agrees with Bo it agrees > with Bo, and > that is that. If I change my mind it will be because I change my mind, and > not to be > included in a consensus.
Steve: I understand that, and agree that the popularity of an idea is irrelevant to its validity. I only chimed in to agree because it seems like DMB and I always disagree lately, but our disagreements are only there because we have a background of agreement. For example, Bo and I are so far apart that I can't even tell where our disagreement starts. Best, Steve Here's two quotes: > that I like: > > > ``Any philosophic explanation of Quality is going to be both false and > true precisely because it is a philosophic explanation. The process of > philosophic explanation is an analytic process, a process of breaking > something down into subjects and predicates. What I mean (and > everybody else means) by the word quality cannot be broken down > into subjects and predicates. This is not because Quality is so mysterious > but because Quality is so simple, immediate and direct. > (ZMM, Chapter 20) > > "The question of "How do you justify the statement that Quality > equals reality?" was the best one. The correct answer from a > MOQ perspective is, "by the harmony it produces", but this > answer is only for people who already understand the MOQ. > Those who don't can't see the harmony and for them this > answer is meaningless." > (Pirsig, 2000) > > I cannot say this of you, but neither Andre, nor dmb seem to display > a sense of harmony. > > Thank you. > > > > Marsha > 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/md/archives.html
