Huh?
On Mar 15, 2013, at 12:51 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > Krimel replied: > ...the issue of definition is important. I think widely over stated and > misunderstood. I think the problem is not confined to Quality. As I said a > while back in another thread. The dog that can be named is not the constant > dog. Definitions are never absolute. They are always fuzzy. They indicate > they do not prescribe. > > > > dmb says: > No, that's just a weird application of your scientific nihilism and it has > nothing to do with Pirsig's refusal to define the MOQ's central term. Using > "dog" interchangeably with "Quality" or the "Tao" would be provocative and > edgy if it made any sense at all. > > Let me see if I follow your reasoning here, Krimel. As I read it, you are > saying, > A) Dogs and everything else, including definitions, cannot be defined any > more than the indefinable, mystical reality can. > B) Therefore, you are not required to use words correctly or otherwise make > sense when discussing philosophy. > Is that about right? 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
