[Matt to Marsha] Okay, granted "once the defining and analysis has started the 'MoQ' has dropped into the Intellectual Level."
[Arlo] I don't grant this, Matt, precisely because the "Metaphysics of Quality" IS "defining and analysis" of Quality. I really think Marsha is confusing the undefinable (Quality) with Pirsig's attempt to analyze it (the Metaphysics of Quality). How can one possibly say the "Metaphysics of Quality" precedes "defining and analysis"??? It exists due to the very act of "defining and analysis" undertaking by Pirsig! [Matt] Then: Where was it before? What is this place that the MoQ exists and falls from? [Arlo] Marsha will just repeat herself, as she's been doing, but here I am beginning to see the issue may be in the objectification of the acronym (MOQ). If we spell it out, the question almost sounds silly. Where was it before? What is this place that the Metaphysics of Quality exists and falls from? [Matt to Marsha] You're defining "labeling" as different than "definition," which is fair enough, but we just need to know how and in what respects. For you've also equated "labeling" with "representing," "denoting," and "signifying." And for people like myself who are used to understanding "signification" as something that can only be understood as contextualized in a pattern, your pattern of labels and denotations seem counterintuitive. [Arlo] Yes. And, this still begets the question as to what "labels" are. If a "label" is not DQ nor SQ, then what is it. If it is SQ, a pattern of value, then what type of pattern of value is it (I-B-S-I)? This really seems to propose a third metaphysical element, the Quality is DQ+SQ+"labels". 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
