[MD] Waiter, I don't think this Quality is any Good

[plattholden at gmail.com]

John, 

There are contributors to this site who don't believe in Quality who have 
plenty of interesting things to say. So far as I know the only requirement 
for participation is having read ZAMM and Lila. To restrict the 
conversation just to true believers would turn the MOQ into a cult, an 
accusation that is already too frequently voiced.

Regards,
Platt 




On 10 Jan 2010 at 10:31, John Carl wrote:

> Platt,
> 
> I agree that going over basic assumptions is a highly valued intellectual
> activity, otherwise, what is a metaphysics discussion even about?
> 
> But I do think going on and on in subsequent directions of discussion,
> without addressing the basic conflicts is a kind of waste of time.
> 
> I mean, what is there to discuss if you don't believe in Quality?
> 
> How to spell "Schopenhauer"?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> John
> 
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Platt Holden <plattholden at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hey John,
> >
> > I don't consider challenging basic assumptions to be a waste of time. In
> > fact, to me that's what philosophy is all about. For example, Pirsig's MOQ
> > challenges the basic assumption that the world is divided into subjects and
> > objects. Many philosophies challenge the assumption of scientific
> > materialism. Such challenges can generate new ideas and broader
> > understanding.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Platt