Arlo,
> [Arlo]
> I know what you *mean*, but by framing it this way you are certainly *not*
> helping the person you are talking to understand why a MOQ is a
> revolutionary, and better, way to think about the cosmos.
>
Truthfully, I don't think such a framing is easy. I'd say it'd take a whole
book, to do it right. :-)
>
> I don't know why for you its not "plain english" to simply say something
> like, "Our western approach has been historically based on a subject-object
> metaphysics, and our language reveals that. Within a MOQ, this worldview is
> reversed, so that Quality precedes subjects and objects, it is not something
> 'objective' nor is it something 'subjective'. A MOQ says that Quality *is*
> experience, so a phrase like "quality experience" is not only unnecessarily
> redundant, but mistakenly adheres to the subject-object view that "quality"
> is an adjective that can be applied to certain 'things'."
>
The point I was trying to make, Arlo, is that according to the normal
vernacular, quality IS an adjective that can be applied to certain things.
And pointing to the root understanding of what it means to say that this
adjective is also the fundamental root of everything, is one approach to
explanation. Perhaps for some people, this would only lead them to more
confusion, but perhaps for others it would be highly enlightening. Why must
there only be one, orthodox approach? Many fingers; one moon.
> How would something like this not be "plain english"? How is something like
> this "esoteric" or cryptic or evidencing a "secret language"?
>
Because we start from the plain understanding of "quality" that everybody
knows. "Are you teaching Quality?" wasn't a mystic or esoteric question for
Phaedrus at the start of his journey. He knew exactly what Sarah was
asking. Yet that plain understanding did lead eventually to some more
mystical places.
>
> Of course, I also refuse to use phrases like "free gift" and when people
> use it I ask them if they normal charge people for their gifts. And a few
> seasons back while watching a football game with a friend we heard the
> announcer say something about the runner's "forward progress". I made a
> comment about that ("is there any other kind?"), and my friend to this day
> says he can't hear that phrase without thinking how wrong it is.
>
Well in football, as well as in life, it's possible to gain a great deal of
ground without actually getting anywhere.
John
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
