[MD] MOQ and Completeness Theories (Sorry, Godel.)

[John Carl]

Hello, Ian,

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:28 AM, Ian Glendinning
<ian.glendinning at gmail.com>wrote:

> John (and Arlo et al)



> Pirsigian orthodoxy being defended by Arlo is that we
> use the word Quality for this zing at the root of this monism. A
> pretty simple historical fact in the MoQ.
>
>

John:

That does make sense to me.  I've sort of realized it before, and I thought
it seemed like the best way to go.  You can't disambiguate Quality because
it needs resonance on multiple levels to really work as a conceptualization
of the indefinable.  Ok.  Fair enough.

Ian:


> Except in states with thought police ;-) no one ever changed their
> language by edict. Personally I would tend to be clear which sense I
> was using the word (say by capitalization in writing) if not clear
> from the context, and clarify when another used quality when they
> though they meant Quality.
>
> I can't believe there is anything contentious above between you and
> Arlo. What you are really arguing about is style of argumentation -
> the style of clarification - hence Marsha's dig - the processes by
> which the meaning of a word morphs over time. A pragmatic question
> largely.
>
> Again, personally, I believe this pragmatic problem would be more
> easily solved by a neologism (or a word more obscure in common usage).
> An MoQ by any name.
>
> It is more important than its name.
>


John:

I think "a Quality experience" is more meaningful by the addition of a
special meaning from the MoQ, but that specialized meaning certainly doesn't
obviate what everybody means in the plain use of the words.

That, if anything, is my main point.


If I actually can remember what that was, I mean.  ;-!