[MD] What is the MOQ?

[krimel at krimel.com]

Ron:
The whole reason MoQ is paralyzed is the conflict in meaning derived by
The abstract/concrete classification of the noun Quality.

Pirsig suggests that Quality is both abstract and concrete in meaning.
Which follows suit in how, grammatically "Quality" is defined.
Quality is an abstract noun formed by the noun forming suffix "-ity"
To an adjective or verb. a suffix used expressing state or condition.
[Origin: 1250?1300; ME qualite < OF < L qu?lit?s, equiv. to qu?l(is)  
of what sort + -it?s -ity]

[Krimel]
I have said over and over that Quality has proven a bad term to apply  
to the Tao. Pirsig said Good was a noun. I don't recall Quality being  
a noun as an issue. But I still don't see the problem residing in what  
part of speech the word is. I see the problem as insisting on defining  
it or in saying it is like this or that and then reifying the analogy.  
Well that and the things that people use as analogies for Quality  
often carry the baggage that the term itself brings with it.

Ron:
We see how we conceive Quality is abstractly via adjective or verb. So it
Is an abstract noun which is descriptive in action. A noun is  
generally perceived as subject or an object. What we end up with  
conceptually
Is a sense of objective intangibility like the noun "Art".
This is my whole point, that the formation of a noun automatically  
forces the first split in conception which is, in our culture,  
abstract/concrete.
There are some nouns that strattle both meanings like Quality and Art.

[Krimel]
Maybe the reason I think all of the talk about SOM is so senseless is  
that the grammatically terms subject and object have nothing to do  
with how I understand Subjects and Objects.

Ron:
Objective thought teaches that abstract nouns do not exist in space
Therefore do not exist. it's those pesky nouns that strattle both
That eat up objectivism's head.

[Krimel]
That also strikes me as a red herring. Science studies lots of things  
that don't exist in space. Things like economics, history, culture,  
love, art. Often scientists might insist on some kind of operational  
definitions but there is nothing in science that insists that ideas or  
insubstantial things can not be studied.

Ron:
The Dynamic/static split is the same split as mind/matter and
Subject/object it is also the classic/romantic split.
It is the noun class and what started it all was the fact
That the noun Quality like the noun Art covers both.
This is what got Pirsig to thinking.

[Krimel]
I agree that subject/object is the mind/matter split but  
static/dynamic is more like wave/particle or chaos/order. That's what  
makes the MoQ really interesting to me at least.

Ron:
Quality then defies adequate SOM description. It then unifies S/O.
It illustrates that for our culture to form an intellectual thought,
experience must first be parsed out in grammatical rules of forming
understandable reference of SUBJECTS AND OBJECTS.

[Krimel]
I just don't see the subject/object problem as a grammatical one. For  
me it is the mind/matter problem or the inner versus outer world  
problem. Grammatically, 'car runs over dog' is not the philosophical  
problem that 'karma runs over dogma' is but neither is a subject  
object problem. Car is the subject, dog is the object. What's the big  
deal?

Ron:
Words and experiences that defy this type of classification are
Thrown out as meaningless.

Nouns like Quality, Art, GoD, are all grammatical platypus

SOM views them as meaningless bunk.

[Krimel]
How so? Gallup uses scientific methods to test people's beliefs about  
such things all the time. Ever heard of the Pepsi challenge? I know  
scientists don't generally think that ghosts exist but none deny that  
ideas exist and that 'ghost' is an idea that exists.