[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Arlo

10 May.:

> [Arlo]
> I have an e-copy, was just at a different computer. I wasn't pressing
> any point, Marsha had brought up the notion that Quality is Reality,
> and I questioned that, 

You questined that Quality=Reality postulate? Really?

> and Platt was supporting it, 

What was Platt supporting?

> and I just think its semantics but whatever. 

Not much in this world escapes language so semantics is all we have. 
. 

> My point about substitution was that it creates some nonsensical
> statements, consider this from ZMM. 

Sure it creates nonsense, which proves that the Quality/MOQ "meta-
metaphysics is nonsense, Quality is the DQ of MOQ's DQ/SQ 
configuration, like the S/O is  the SOM. You forgot to answer my 
question if there were any world view that said that quality is not 
reality?  

Bodvar   





































> 
> "Quality...you know what it is, yet you don't know what it is. But
> that's self-contradictory. But some things are better than others,
> that is, they have more quality." (ZMM)
> 
> This becomes, "[Reality]...you know what it is, yet you don't know
> what it is. But that's self-contradictory. But some things are better
> than others, that is, they have more [reality]."
> 
> "When you subtract quality you get squareness. Absence of Quality is
> the essence of squareness." (ZMM)
> 
> Becomes, "When you subtract [reality] you get squareness. Absence of
> [Reality] is the essence of squareness."
> 
> You've said you think "Reality is the primary empirical reality of
> reality" is a meaningful statement, but its about as tautologically
> insignificant as you can get. Besides implying that there may be a
> "secondary empirical reality of reality that is NOT Reality", its just
> wheel-spinning.
> 
> [Bo]
> Who was it that "provided a quote?
> 
> [Arlo]
> Either Platt or Marsha provided the quote "Quality is the primary
> empirical reality of the world".
> 
> Here's another, "This was the question, If everyone knows what 
> quality is, why is there such a disagreement about it?" (ZMM). Or,
> "This was the question, If everyone knows what [reality] is, why is
> there such a disagreement about it?" Do you really think there is much
> disagreement on "what reality is"? I mean apart from the philosophers
> who argue such things? Do you think if you and I met in a bar we'd
> disagree on what in that bar constituted "reality"?
> 
> Two more for now.
> 
> "If it could speak the amoeba, without knowing anything about 
> sulfuric acid, could say, 'This environment has poor quality.' If it
> had a nervous system it would act in a much more complex way to
> overcome the poor quality of the environment." (ZMM)
> 
> "If it could speak the amoeba, without knowing anything about 
> sulfuric acid, could say, 'This environment has poor [reality].' If it
> had a nervous system it would act in a much more complex way to
> overcome the poor [reality] of the environment."
> 
> "Art is high-quality endeavor." (ZMM)
> 
> "Art is high-[reality] endeavor."
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> 
>