Hi Joe, I am not sure if redefined is the right term. I would use extrapolated. The adjective quality becomes a noun in the attempt to formulate an underlying concept which produces quality. The general meaning has not changed, for what is quality (as expounded initially in ZMM)? If we use the Hindu concept of "the world of appearances" then quality is the way things appear. We then consider a concept which gives birth to qualities. For rhetorical purposes we call that Quality. Once established, Quality can then be directly expounded on. This is one of the methods of metaphysics, which is no different from Science. Once a theory is given a name, it assumes a conceptual life of it's own, and becomes an abstract proper noun. The utility of such defined abstraction is shown by the march of applied science. It is hoped that the same comes from MoQ. The march of science appears disorganized when working in the middle, the same is true for metaphysics.
Cheers, Mark On Oct 7, 2011, at 12:27 PM, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Matt and All, > > Imho Part of the problem in communicating ideas is that words are being > redefined. Quality moves from an adjective to a noun. Good also is > conceptualized in both categories. To aid communication, a vocabulary has > to be established of SOM and MOQ. Is the definition or description for > "evolution" to be or not to be? > > The biggest stumbling block to that vocabulary is evolution! "Indeterminacy > of DQ/degeneracy" undercuts "just knowing it." > > For myself "evolutionary markers", "definitions" are all in the unknown, > discussed bin. I suggest that "evolutionary markers" follow a pattern like > the musical octave of 7 steps of varying levels as a template. At least > sound and color define some definitive repeating differences. > > Joe > > > On 10/6/11 11:45 AM, "Matt Kundert" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Matt: >> But are we not sometimes wrong about what we feel is going on in >> our experience? Your answer is, roughly, that we "just know" when >> we are following DQ. But the reason I've been bringing the thesis >> I've dubbed the "indeterminacy of DQ/degeneracy" to bear on this >> issue is because it seems to me that that idea in Pirsig undercuts >> the certainty otherwise endowed to "just knowing it." > > > 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
