Eddo,
Regarding your post earlier today, I was also hoping that you'd have had a more
positive response at MOQ Discuss regarding your "definition of Quality" but
unfortunately it seems your ideas were just too far removed from Pirsig's ideas
(where Quality is kept UNDEFINED) to be of much interest here. That's an
immense metaphysical rift which goes all the way back to Plato "defining" the
Good as some type of Form. The whole of Pirsig's project is to keep the Good
UNDEFINED and play out the "metaphysical consequences" from such an assertion.
As such, maybe you'd be better off discussing your ideas with a Platonist with
an interest in mathematics?
You asked: "as a dutch guy i want to know now how you use the word egotistical
here."
The term "egotistical" was probably too strong a term to use on my part but it
was your March 27th 2013 comment on the robertpirsig.org Facebook page:
"i am desperately seeking for someone who can proof me wrong."
that did strike me as rather an ambitious remark considering that the brief
overview of your "definition" of Quality just above this statement on the
Facebook page was rather obscure.
In other words, it might be a lot easier to find someone who "can prove you
wrong" if you just write out your thesis clearly.
For instance, your "definition" just above the comment on the robertpirsig.org
Facebook page states:
Can I define beauty?=value=quality yes!!!
My definition of quality is: Quality represents "That" where I can identify
with.
The trick in understanding this definition is in the two dimensional character
of the word "Identification".
You can Identify a "What" and you can Identify "With"
"What" is represented by the information dimension.
"With" is represented by the sensation dimension.
This is all Mathematically approachable.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
For a start, I'd say that you can also identify a "When" and a "Who" thus
implying the word "identification" has at least a four dimensional character.
Given further thought, you might realise that it has seven or eight dimensions
or 55!
You conclude by saying this is "all mathematically approachable". Well again,
that needs to be shown in detail (presumably using algebra).
I'm sorry I can't spend more time on this but I seem to be juggling 101 balls
in the air at the
moment with various domestic and work commitments (MOQ and otherwise). On a
more positive note one of these "commitments" was finished yesterday. This is
Paul Turner's new "Two Contexts" paper which will be uploaded sometime later
today at robertpirsig.org.
Best wishes,
Anthony
----------------------------------------
Eddo Rats stated June 6th 2013:
Ant said:
I don't really have the emotional energy - at the moment - to deal with
people such as yourself with the typical egotistical ideas...
Eddo:
as a dutch guy i want to know now how you use the word egotistical here.
wiktionairy says;
1. Tending to talk excessively about oneself.
2. Believing oneself to be better and more important than others.
3. Egoistical <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/egoistical>.
I don't recognise myself in neither of these three definitions. i just
wanted to express an intellictual variation on RMP's Thoughts. Probably if
you don't parrot RMP here exactly according certain persons on this MOQ
forum you are to be considered egotistical. That's why in some (irritated)
reactions i used the words pullpit, priest and church becacause of what i
have experienced here on this forum until now, and i also read 10 to 15%,
is in my opinion far from an free open intellectual playing field.
I opened a discussion to consider a possible definition of quality in a two
dimensional abstract perspective.
Until now.........no reactions.........why? ........................??????
Kind regards
Eddo
.
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
