Hi David You have a point. Langauge type SQ differentiates and divides up our experience like mad. This gives us a great handle on experience and uncovers (via a sort of grid or spectacles) many aspects of experience-reality. Yet at the same time any polar opposites, black and white terms, is a simplification of a more abundant and inexpressible whole.
David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Harding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 8:55 AM Subject: Re: [MD] tiny skull > Hi SA, > > To answer your question, I think that to not answer the question of > what Quality is, is to leave it to DQ. But I recognise that as much > as I or the Buddhists, or even you try, this cannot help but be a > definition. To say, DQ is no thing, is still a definition. Of > course, the answer to 'What is Quality?' cannot be answered for > quality isn't any thing in particular, but this is a definition so I > say quality exists. > > I think, when you don't answer the question of what quality is, as > you do on here, I think that this is the perspective of DQ. But > there is another perspective of quality which is discussed on here, > which I have noticed and you say so here, that you have trouble > understanding. That perspective is the perspective of sq. The > perspective of divisions, and 'this is better than that' and so on > which is just as relevant as the perspective of DQ. So to answer your > question, Quality can be both defined and not defined and the MOQ > defends both positions. > > Cheers, > > David. > > > On 21/05/2007, at 11:30 AM, Heather Perella wrote: > >> Here's a tiny skull question that might help me >> understand all this betterness going on here. >> For one, betterness is argued, that I can agree >> with. But to say one level is better than another >> level, that is where I'm having trouble. I say no, >> one level can't be compared with another level in such >> a way. >> >> So, here's my question as follows: >> >> When Pirsig asked the question, "What is >> Quality?", is it the answer one focuses upon? Or, is >> it the question that is not completely answered that >> one focuses upon? I admit, I have focused on the >> incompleteness. I've kept the question in place. >> This is how I view Quality to be both static and >> dynamic. >> >> >> nightly breeze, >> SA >> >> >> >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> ______________ >> Be a PS3 game guru. >> Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at >> Yahoo! Games. >> http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121 >> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
