I agree completely Arlo, tho I do kinda like "Art is a high reality endeavor"
John ready for some high reality On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 6:59 AM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote: > [Arlo previously] > > It would be interesting to perform a find/replace of "Quality" with > "reality" in ZMM/LILA and see if there are any places where such a > substitution makes no sense, but I don't have my e-versions on this > computer. > > [Bo] > > If you want an e-version of ZAMM I can send it over? Anyway, disregarding > it's me the recently appointed BOgey who ask, what was your reasoning or > point. Or was it someone else who brought up the issue? > > [Arlo] > I have an e-copy, was just at a different computer. I wasn't pressing any > point, Marsha had brought up the notion that Quality is Reality, and I > questioned that, and Platt was supporting it, and I just think its semantics > but whatever. My point about substitution was that it creates some > nonsensical statements, consider this from ZMM. > > "Quality...you know what it is, yet you don't know what it is. But that's > self-contradictory. But some things are better than others, that is, they > have more quality." (ZMM) > > This becomes, "[Reality]...you know what it is, yet you don't know what it > is. But that's self-contradictory. But some things are better than others, > that is, they have more [reality]." > > "When you subtract quality you get squareness. Absence of Quality is the > essence of squareness." (ZMM) > > Becomes, "When you subtract [reality] you get squareness. Absence of > [Reality] is the essence of squareness." > > You've said you think "Reality is the primary empirical reality of reality" > is a meaningful statement, but its about as tautologically insignificant as > you can get. Besides implying that there may be a "secondary empirical > reality of reality that is NOT Reality", its just wheel-spinning. > > [Bo] > > Who was it that "provided a quote? > > [Arlo] > Either Platt or Marsha provided the quote "Quality is the primary empirical > reality of the world". > > Here's another, "This was the question, If everyone knows what quality is, > why is there such a disagreement about it?" (ZMM). Or, "This was the > question, If everyone knows what [reality] is, why is there such a > disagreement about it?" Do you really think there is much disagreement on > "what reality is"? I mean apart from the philosophers who argue such things? > Do you think if you and I met in a bar we'd disagree on what in that bar > constituted "reality"? > > Two more for now. > > "If it could speak the amoeba, without knowing anything about sulfuric > acid, could say, 'This environment has poor quality.' If it had a nervous > system it would act in a much more complex way to overcome the poor quality > of the environment." (ZMM) > > "If it could speak the amoeba, without knowing anything about sulfuric > acid, could say, 'This environment has poor [reality].' If it had a nervous > system it would act in a much more complex way to overcome the poor > [reality] of the environment." > > "Art is high-quality endeavor." (ZMM) > > "Art is high-[reality] endeavor." > > > > 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 > 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
