Hi Arlo 10 May.:
> [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, You questined that Quality=Reality postulate? Really? > and Platt was supporting it, What was Platt supporting? > and I just think its semantics but whatever. Not much in this world escapes language so semantics is all we have. . > My point about substitution was that it creates some nonsensical > statements, consider this from ZMM. Sure it creates nonsense, which proves that the Quality/MOQ "meta- metaphysics is nonsense, Quality is the DQ of MOQ's DQ/SQ configuration, like the S/O is the SOM. You forgot to answer my question if there were any world view that said that quality is not reality? Bodvar > > "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
