[MD] Does Quality exist?

[Platt Holden]

Matt asserted:

> For the MoQ to cause a paradigm shift, it has to
> 
> a) explain phenomena better than standard existing viewpoints
> b) be accepted by society (in this case philosophical society) as such
> c) not be fiction
> 
> I added C, and while C isn't necessary, it's a prevalent trend in notable
> philosophical progress.
> 
> Other than that, the MoQ seems to fail in respect A, fails utterly in
> respect B, and fails in respect C.

Where Matt got his criteria for defining a paradigm shift is a mystery, but 
for the sake of argument, let's go along with it.

a) Pirsig cites a number of "platypi" in Lila that the MOQ explains much 
better than the standard SOM viewpoint. Examples are familiar to anyone who 
has read Lila. 

b) Acceptance of the basic tenants of the MOQ by "philosophical society" is 
already wide and deep in the Orient.  Matt's assertion appears to limit 
itself to western philosophy which Whitehead aptly described as "all 
footnotes to Plato." So the west needs more time to come around. But it's 
getting there with Dr. McWatt and the MD leading the way. 

c) Since there has been little "philosophical progress" in the past 2000 
years, the criteria of "not fiction" seems irrelevant. Anyway as Jacob 
Bronoski pointed out, all theories, including scientific ones, are fiction: 
"Science, like art, is not a copy of nature but a re-creation." 

Finally, the word "paradigm" has a number of different meanings according 
to Wikipedia.  I use the broad definition -- "a philosophical or 
theoretical framework of any kind." That the MOQ is a new "framework" 
should be evident. 

Platt