Bo and Denis,
I think you guys are in the Pirsig paradox. Let's take
this statement from Bo:
> >The MOQ is high quality because it is QUALITY.
So I will use my language grammar.
[sq] This is a poor quality statement. "Metaphysics
must be divisible, defineable knowable(LILA 73)" AND
"Quality is undefinable (73)" Thus, by logic,
Metaphysics (of Quality) is NOT Quality, and Bo's
statement is wrong. ( I can get away with "wrong" in
sq land because logic lives in here ) [/sq]
[DQ] MOQ of course partakes of Quality and "shows"
quality, so MOQ is Quality. A metaphysics is a species
of being the "show" so it must be true that
metaphysics is Quality. [/DQ]
So both of you are right and both of you are wrong.
I think Bo "points" at a good question: isn't anything
we say "just" intellect and is there a way out of
this. Isn't all intellect tainted with SOM? Is there
an intellect without objects? I think Bo's question is
valid, and I look at SOLAQI as more of a question than
a statement.
I think Denis expresses the understanding of the [sq]
MOQ [/sq] better than Bo but Bo has a hankering for
the [DQ] MOQ [/DQ].
My SOLILAQUY is a "better language." A better language
will "point" better to the realm of the "show." The
show is "in" time and language is "through" time. So a
language "in" time is impossible and is the source of
the argument between Bo and Denis.
They're a pair of ducks on the opposite side of the
same coin. Maybe they can waddle to the edge. Quack
quack.
Angus
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:41 BST