[MD] BeTteR-neSs (undefined or otherwise)

[Andre Broersen]

Mark to Andre:

Forgive me for being provocative.  My questions and statements are met with
what you write below.  "You don't understand, read more".  That leads me to
understand that you don't understand.  It is quite possible to respond to my
queries without being condescending.

Andre:
Curious this; labeling someone's contributions as lacking 'depth' is not condescending but 'provocative'? I realize English is my second language but this I find a strange summing up and conclusion.
Yes, I can respond to your 'queries' but reading your posts makes me wonder where to start? A simple query such as: 'What puts DQ out of the bounds of metaphysics?' leads me to indeed say:'You don't understand'. I mean, ZMM, LILA, LC, etc are full of why DQ should be kept out of any conceptualizations of it. You can't get at it that way. And if you don't get that you don't get it. Get it?

Mark:
Please provide the Tenants of MOQ in short form,...

Andre:
There is a good summary of the MOQ by Mr. Pirsig on MOQ.org (I Think).

Mark:
I do not have the Ph.D.  If this provides definitions which differentiate
the two, then I would be happy to hear them.  As Ham presents Value, I
equate it to my understanding of Quality.

Andre:
If you want a copy just ask, but do not expect too many definitions. I know that definitions are easy but they are also easy to endlessly argue about. The MOQ is a little bit more subtle than that. But I could be wrong.
As for Ham presenting Value. Ham does not subscribe to the MOQ.

I am not running away from what you are asking Mark, but, at the risk of getting a "well, that's your interpretation' simply refer you to original sources. We could take the discussion from there.

Mark:
May I ask you how long you have been contemplating Quality?

Andre:
I told you what I did as a four year old. Now that was Quality...the older the hanky the better!!!  ;-)