Hello, Ian, On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Ian Glendinning <[email protected]>wrote:
> John (and Arlo et al) > 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. > > John: That does make sense to me. I've sort of realized it before, and I thought it seemed like the best way to go. You can't disambiguate Quality because it needs resonance on multiple levels to really work as a conceptualization of the indefinable. Ok. Fair enough. Ian: > 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. > John: I think "a Quality experience" is more meaningful by the addition of a special meaning from the MoQ, but that specialized meaning certainly doesn't obviate what everybody means in the plain use of the words. That, if anything, is my main point. If I actually can remember what that was, I mean. ;-! 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
