[MD] Decision

[Ian Glendinning]

As we're a mile off topic, we may as well continue ...

John you said
"For you know it's all linguistic games.  The Quality question being,
which games to take more seriously than others."

There is a lot in that, that I consider important.

Knowing language is all games (in the game-theoretic,
evolutionary-arms-race, sense) what matters is not that it is a game
(because it is) but what game the participant is playing.

Dan warned people not to impose their views of other people's motives
on their responses - which is a good warning (a sign of wisdom) - but
the reality is, it's actually all we have to go on, so must be handled
with care, fairly and with trust. (Pirsig pointed out how many ways
the word "fair" is used.) Easy to confuse style with intent, and
assume the worst (of motives). Content and style are part of the game,
but intent can be strategic, beyond the tactical game. By serious I
think you mean with positive strategic intent.

I wouldn't use the word "serious". What's wrong with the word "quality" ?

People have to have quality intentions, however much fun they're
having, even fun at other people's expense - provided they share
mutual trust with that person - ad-hominem is a no no. It's actually
why trolling / spoiling for its own sake is such a nuisance if it
becomes greater than background noise - my bandwidth point earlier. We
all need to be stirred out of our comfort zones, but we still need to
have comfort zones.

My adage is that it is necessary to default on assuming the best
(motives) not the worst without good evidence (there is NEVER proof
and only beyond reasonable doubt in well regulated courts of law).
That's not because I disapprove of awkward disagreeable critical
bastards, we need them too (however see motives above). It's because
there does need to be  a net tendency in the whole to positive
quality, to progress, some static latches. Confirmation bias is good
too ... in moderation.

To bring the point home - with all respect, etc - I'm beginning to
doubt your motives John. You may indeed be the theistic troll Dave
accuses you of being. Good fun though, so long as there's only one or
two of you ;-)

I would like to come back to the word trust as - dare I say - faith.
But you've got Dave all riled up, so I'll sit on it.

Regards
Ian

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:36 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
>  Oh Ian, I can't help it neither.
>
>
> I can't help thinking this is descending into a linguistic game that
>> has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread (about Horse's
>> decision).
>>
>>
>
> Linguistic game?  Coming from you, I appreciate that immensely.  For you
> know it's all linguistic games.  The Quality  question being, which games to
> take more seriously than others.
>
>
>
>>
>> And for John, who also seems to like the linguistic games or exegesis
>> or hermeneutics of the ancient texts .... Pirsig's first recorded
>> reference to the MoQ was in fact as "a Quality metaphysics" .... don't
>> read too much into that.
>>
>>
> Got me again!  Almost.
>
> Anyway, you started it Ian.  The linguistic gamesmanship I mean with the ol'
> plant and all.
>
> I'm just a simple guy who'd have to look up "hermeneutics" in a dictionary
> before I'd be comfortable using it in a sentence, or figuring out how to
> construe it proper.  Same with exegesis.
>
>
>
>
>> As you were, don't mind me.
>>
>
>
>  I always do.  I should probably stop soon.
>
>
> ol' John
>>
>
>> Ian
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 6:38 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Andy, you're flirting with my idea of the levels now, which I distinguish
>> > from the MoQ by calling it a Quality metaphysics as opposed to a
>> Metaphysics
>> > of Quality and  use the designation Q'm"
>> >