On July 8th Andre Broersen wrote: > Anthony said to Andre: > > I'm not too sure Andre.? If was to rewrite "Man is the measure of all > things" in MOQ Terms, I'd say "Human beings are the measure of all static > patterns".? It's not as catchy as the original though! > > Andre: > That's fair enough Anthony. My simple reasoning was along the lines of: > since 'We','Human beings','Man' are static patterns of quality capable of > apprehending DQ (Dq/sq) 'we' are the measure of all things (sq). Put them > together and you get 'Dq/sq is the measure of all things (sq). Tat Tvam > Asi. ["You are that"] > > But maybe I'm way off... .
Mark Smith responded July 9th: Hi, I will have to butt in once again. Just being friendly and conversational. In my opinion, Ant is more correct... Ant McWatt comments: Thank you for the endorsement there Mark though, unfortunately, you justify this opinion with one of your usual rhetorical posts of nonsense. I don't know you bother continuing in this negative path on this Discussion group as you've recently been "called out" by Horse, Arlo, Andre and Dan (amongst others) in addition to me about this. Like a loud mouthed guest who's drank too much at a party, much (but, to be fair, not all!) of what you say here is not really appreciated. Sober up or "go home"... I have suggested - in good faith - that you study writers such as Hemingway and Pirsig to improve your standard of rhetoric. If you want to look at high quality rhetoric with an East Asian take, take a look at the "Taoist Mystery & Magic" book by John Blofeld - especially the observations of the monks that are quoted in there. Keep in mind, that even in Philodemus' time (1st century BC) it was recognised that rhetoric required substantive content to be worthwhile; to be considered having Quality! There's enough third rate intellectual and aesthetic crap in this world without you adding to it here. Anyway, to return to the original subject of this thread, I suppose Andre's take on Protagoras' original expression is less conventional than mine but is it really less correct, that is to say less true which is to say, in MOQ terms, less useful i.e. less valuable? If, for instance, sentient beings were found to exist elsewhere than this planet then Andre's substitution of Protagoras's "Man" with "DQ/sq" could be thought of as a better definition because it's more universal than my substitution of Protagoras's "Man" with only "human beings". Then again, I get the impression that the MOQ asserts (or at least the MOQ of LILA; the simple "everyday affairs" version for the Western philosophologist) that ALL static entities (can) respond to DQ; from atoms through to plants, from brown bears to human beings. As such, maybe Andre's "DQ/sq" substitution makes Protagoras's original statement too wide. And, as you know with Marsha's use of the word "ghost", once the referring subjects for a term become too wide, then, in effect (i.e. in practice), the word becomes useless. In other words it's probably better to state that it is the intellectual patterns and aesthetic sensibility of sentient beings (such as human beings) which is the critical part of DQ/sq for measurement. There is also the issue (which appeared on this Discussion Board a couple of months ago) regarding the ambiguity of the phrase "all things". Did Protagoras mean "everything that exists" or just "everything definable" i.e. all static entities? You see I don't think paintings or music can be reduced down to words and definitions but (as Pirsig found when placing four of his students essays into a hierarchy of quality) that some general agreement can be reached on one "indefinable" being better or worse than another "indefinable". So to return to the full quote by Protagoras (that we have in 2012) this is usually translated on the lines of: "Of all things the measure is Man, of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras -- Man is the Measure of All Things: How Everything is True if Believed to be True | Suite101.com http://suite101.com/article/protagoras-man-is-the-measure-of-all-things-a92771#ixzz20mlL6EGF With this in mind, Andre's take on the quote can be re-written as "Of all sq the measure is DQ/sq, of sq that are, that they are, and of the sq that are not, that they are not." While I'd re-write the quote now as: "The measure of Quality regarding everything that exists, is done by the intellectual patterns and aesthetic sensibility of sentient beings (such as human beings)." In other words, a dog might prefer one type of food over another (i.e. "Dog is the measure of all things biological") but you'd be wasting your time, to try and ask a dog over their preference for static patterns involving intellectual and aesthetic "objects" whether that be ideas about space-time, paintings or literature i.e. it's the human being ability to differentiate intellectual and aesthetic quality which makes us unique (at least on this world). Best wishes, Ant Dr Anthony McWatt site administrator, www.robertpirsig.org. . 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
