> Bodvar wrote:
> It is of course possible to ..change the MoQ...but then it is no
> longer the MOQ and should be presented under a different name (as
> Pirsig says), but I felt that Renselle did not want that and yet
> introduced an unnecessary complication that endangered the (beauty of)
> the original idea. If anyone should look into his tables and believe
> that this was the MOQ they would leave as fast as possible.
>
> But has there been many "annoying" ideas"? Phew! Right now Horse has
> launched one about computers (virus and Internet) as a 5th level, and
> myself (based on Platt Holden's suggestion) one of the Quality idea
> itself as Dynamic Quality's attempt to.....in your words ... "seek
> freedom from static patterns". I agree with you that it (DQ seeking
> freedom) is the weirdest (and best) idea and the stroke of Pirsig's
> genius that makes the MOQ so unique, and of which I know no
> parallel.
Thank you for the clarification of your position. I do agree that how to define what is and what is not MoQ is a thorny
issue and that having some standards is essential in preventing a degenerative slide to "whatever". Certainly there
will be are some individuals whose views we as individuals view sympathically and others who are, well, out-there.
Given enough time and the diversity of the world I can just see all kinds of "wacko" suggestions that don't fit the
empirical model or extend the state of the MoQ. I think we should give the "wacko" or low Quality suggestions enough
rope to hang themselves as long as our electronic resources are not overwhelmed. I think the MoQ is the best metaphysics
i've ever read, and while I would love to be able to punch some serious holes in it, I find it exceedingly difficult.
Glen Dickey
aka aretelaugh
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:34 BST