[MD] Metaphysics

[skutvik at online.no]

Steve, All.

12 Jan. you said: 

> The answer to your question 

I did not ask any question, but simply showed that the very problem 
that Phaedrus identified as SOM - and what the MOQ is supposed to 
resolve - is perpetuated by the Quality/MOQ "meta-metaphysics". You, 
however, continue to cite passages that affirm the fallacy - like Ron 
you think this "wikipedian" tactics will work. 

I guess it's useless but now I'll pose a few questions.

1) Is the DQ of MOQ's DQ/SQ something else than Quality? 

2) If Pirsig said that Quality IS the DQ, will that alter anything?     

3) How do you manage to make the MOQ fit inside a smaller part of  
its own (the intellectual level) without violating the container logic.?
 
4) If there emerges a world view - a metaphysics - that claims that the 
MOQ is hogwash, is that still one of the countless possible 
descriptions of Quality?
   
Hopefully

Bodvar