In a message dated 12/27/01 4:07:01 PM GMT Standard Time, struan@clara.co.uk
writes:
<< P.S. Squonk. This really is becoming tiresome. Yes, I agree, value is
prior to conceptualising. When did I say it was not? Equally tiresome is
that you continue to ask me to define quality when I gave a full
response to that question on this forum on 12/12/2001 and in a different
way only yesterday. Your retort was that my working list (which I
clearly stated was not a working list) would begin with quality and that
my definition was derived from quality. Well spotted. That is the whole
point of a definition. Your final typical moqer resorts to questioning
my education and throwing the mythical SOM at me are worthless. >>
I don't question your education.
I said it is a hindrance for you.
Einstein's inability to accept his contemporary paradigm was useful for him
in that it did not block his creative insight.
Your manifold education does you see; I feel sure you are educated to the
highest standard, but it does not serve us well.
Berkeley said he did not wish to turn things into ideas but rather ideas into
things.
Pirsig may be said to be suggesting a similar move for patterns of quality?
We may look not to turn things into patterns of quality but rather patterns
of quality into things.
Please note we have direct experience of patterns of quality.
Squonk.
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 - 16:01:43 BST