>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.
Of course this is just semantics. Feel-good baloney. Is it just my imagination or is there some sort of "flying saucer cult" forming here behind the scenes? Sheesh. >Do you think if you and I met in a bar we'd disagree on what in that bar >constituted "reality"? Oh you mean LOLA. I never read that one. ________________________________ From: Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, May 10, 2010 6:59:24 AM Subject: Re: [MD] Reading & Comprehension [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
