And folks, I should have said, given the Godelian title this thread still has (even after Dave restarting it) ... the pragmatic problem of style of language clarification and change has no (complete and consistent) analytic solution. No quality metaphysics ever will (note small q). http://www.psybertron.org/?p=1605
Do Arlo and John value their relationship more or less than the usage of a particular word ? Ian On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Ian Glendinning <[email protected]> wrote: > John (and Arlo et al) > > You can see that whilst the subject quality arose in common sense > understanding of the good (with his self-grading students), even in > "common sense" use it already has ambiguous meaning. Both general > qualitative attributes as well as the sense of "good quality" for > example. > > You can see that even though it arose in one of these ambiguous common > sense forms in the classroom that the MoQ moves us from quality to > Quality in an effort to reserve the word for a more particular usage. > > Pirsig could have chosen a different word - value and virtue were > fashionable in ethical philosophy - Pirsig himself had a fondness for > fairness - (I personally prefer the words participation or difference > or significance or relation but that's irrelevant) ... we could invent > a neologism ... Pirsigian orthodoxy being defended by Arlo is that we > use the word Quality for this zing at the root of this monism. A > pretty simple historical fact in the MoQ. > > Except in states with thought police ;-) no one ever changed their > language by edict. Personally I would tend to be clear which sense I > was using the word (say by capitalization in writing) if not clear > from the context, and clarify when another used quality when they > though they meant Quality. > > I can't believe there is anything contentious above between you and > Arlo. What you are really arguing about is style of argumentation - > the style of clarification - hence Marsha's dig - the processes by > which the meaning of a word morphs over time. A pragmatic question > largely. > > Again, personally, I believe this pragmatic problem would be more > easily solved by a neologism (or a word more obscure in common usage). > An MoQ by any name. > > It is more important than its name. > > Ian > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote: >> [John] >> 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. >> >> [Arlo] >> Right, and if you want someone to understand a MOQ, you need to explain to >> them that this is "wrong". You impede understanding by saying "this is the >> wrong way to look at this, but keep using the word this way if you want". >> >> [John] >> Why must there only be one, orthodox approach? Many fingers; one moon. >> >> [Arlo] >> Who said anything about "orthodox"? What, did you and Marsha forget your >> anti-paranoia meds this morning? Seriously. Jeez. >> >> First you accuse me of promoting an "esoteric, secret language", then when I >> challenge that your response is to accuse me of pushing a singular >> "orthodox" approach to understanding. I assume Marsha's moronic "tyrannical >> German" and "Orwellian" and "though police" are not far behind. >> >> [John] >> Because we start from the plain understanding of "quality" that everybody >> knows. >> >> [Arlo] >> Which is based in a western s/o worldview that a MOQ argues against. >> >> [John] >> "Are you teaching Quality?" wasn't a mystic or esoteric question for >> Phaedrus at the start of his journey. >> >> [Arlo] >> No it wasn't, it was a plain english question that problematized Pirsig's >> "common sense" view of Quality. It was this question that caused him to >> abandon that "common sense" view and articulate an answer that was radically >> different from the "common sense" meaning everyone else was using. >> >> [John] >> Well in football, as well as in life, it's possible to gain a great deal of >> ground without actually getting anywhere. >> >> [Arlo] >> So you are saying that the phrase "backward progress" would be acceptable to >> you? Would you then say there is such a think as "forward regress"? The >> problem here is that the "common sense" view is that "progress" simply means >> movement, when in fact it means "movement, as towards a goal", or "forward >> movement". >> >> Richard Lederer tells a great story about a sign on his campus that reads >> "No Trespassing Without Permission". When he tried to explain that "by >> definition the act of trespassing is committed without permission", he was >> met only with "polite smiles". "Now more than twenty-five years later, the >> signs still stand and so do their messages. Unauthorized visitors are still >> required to obtain permission before they trespass on our grounds." (The >> Miracle of Language) >> >> >> >> 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
