Ham to Mark, Andre, and All: Today Andre saw fit to chastise Mark for suggesting that Quality could be discussed "descriptively":
You keep on wanting 'thoughts on Quality'. You think the MoQ is one 'description' of Quality. Jeez man, what is there to say about Quality? A 'nothingness within which there is great working'? (a la Katigiri Roshi?)
But is that a fair criticism in a forum whose very purpose is to discuss the Metaphysics of Quality? I suspect the author himself would be appalled by such dismissal of his central concept. Andre: I think your criticism is not quite fair Ham. Mark, as I have followed him, is conflating Quality and Dynamic Quality as it is used in the MoQ. When Mark makes statements like: thoughts are DQ, I am living DQ, ideas come before DQ... then I am convinced he knows not what he is talking about and is making a mess of things. It appears to me that Mark is conflating 'action' with DQ. When he keeps on repeating that the MoQ is a description of Quality I am wondering what he is talking about and so should you. I am reading it as Mark's attempt at describing DQ...and Pirsig would be horrified if he would find his 'central concept' being dismissed in such a way. As Pirsig stresses: It is important to keep all concepts out of Dynamic Quality... . As far as describing Quality (as it is understood within the MoQ) is concerned...have a go Ham...without making a fool of yourself. Ham: As a free-thinker with a different approach to Value (which Pirsig equated with Quality), may I offer some clarification that may help to resolve this dilemma? Andre: On second thoughts...don't bother Ham. What does it mean to be a 'free-thinker'? LoL. Hasta la pasta.
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
