dmb,
You might consider working on your own motorcycle, because your motorcycle, like many of your arguments (see clear example below), is missing some major parts. Marsha Subject: Re: [MD] Definitions On Mar 15, 2013, at 12:51 AM, david buchanan wrote: Carrie said to Krimel: ...But while quality is defined as undefinable, we all do have an idea of what it means to do good. And what it means to just randomnly do any old thing. We have common understanding of the terms that seems to say they are opposite one another. 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. 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
