Hi Marsha, I apologize if I come off as complaining. In some circles this is called healthy debate with rhetoric.
The reason I may question you equation of Quality and reality, is because that it may be misleading. Your quote from Pirsig may point that out to you: > "Quality is the primary reality of the world." This statement alone implies that quality and reality are two different concepts. Quality is being defined through the concept of primary reality. This is different from Quality being Reality. It is easy to be misled by words, one must look beyond them to see Quality. We were off the grid for a while due to the wonderful Desert Winds that blow through here with force at this time of the year. It seems that the lines are back up now. Mark On Nov 3, 2011, at 1:39 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > > FIRST, sorry for he long delay. I was without power and land-line, cell > phone service & DSL service because of the storm. All returned this > afternoon making me one of the lucky few. New Fairfield was 100% off the > grid and still is 90% off the grid. > > > > Mark: > I am only trying to understand your view on Quality, so I do not think it is > being petty. I thought I was doing a good job. It is words like unpatterned > that I do not understand. Such a word has no meaning to me in the same way > that undefined has no meaning, and I keep asking Joe about it. So it is not > my intent to find fault, and I am disappointed that you would think so. > > Marsha: > I explained my view of the MoQ: Reality = Quality(Dynamic(unpatterned > experience)/static(patterned experience)). > > > Mark: > That you think that Quality means the same thing as the more commonly used > word Reality is a bold statement since it means that all the common > attributes given to Reality can be given to Quality. > > Marsha: > As RMP states: "Quality is the primary reality of the world." > > Mark: > I was simply exploring that. Some day you may stop being so defensive and we > can have a real conversation, or not. > > Marsha: > Yet, you, on your part, ignore questions that I put to you. > > And you complained of my use of the word "reality" in a discussion about > metaphysics, a subject which asks basic questions about reality. And you > yourself not too long ago wrote "The dimensionality of space cannot be > discarded in metaphysics, since it creates our reality." I think your > complaining, and you are beginning to sound like one of the complaining sock > puppets, is hypocritical. > > By what standards of intellectual discourse do you write? > > > > ___ > > > 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
