[MD] new blog

[Michael Poloukhine]

> From: Andre 
> Andre:
> Michael, you are suggesting that quality 'does' something. This is
> completely misunderstanding... . Quality does not cause or do
> anything.
MP: I can say the same thing about God in theistic terms, btw (although 
admittedly many would not, but IMO their loss) 

> Andre:
> I like to think of myself as an MoQ'er but I do not believe in
> Quality. This is the same as saying I believe in air, fairies, leprechauns,
> gravity, John
> Lennon.
> How can one believe in something that cannot be defined?
> How can you believe in something outside of yourself Michael? Think
> about
> this very carefully please.

MP: Perhaps I need to re-read Pirsig on Quality, but my understanding is that 
MoQ has us believe things tend toward greater Quality getting there via 
Dynamic and static. While Quality can't be defined per se, that explanation is an 
empirical definition well enough for this excercise. You say you can't believe in 
it, but you do by default if you subscribe to an Mo*Q*.

As such, I think God and Quality can be equated relationally. That is: God is to 
Theism as Quality is to MoQ. Mathematicalyl a relationship just with greater 
numerator and denomenator on the MoQ side.

As to how I can believe in something that cannot be defined? Easy; (ducks) 
Faith. Faith based on empirical observation in light of an acceptance that 
something I cannot define is nonetheless something to which things I see are 
related, part of, in concert with. Gut feeling is another way to describe it.

How do you do it?