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

[John Carl]

Ho Arlo,

An old dialogue I find, still in need of a reply.

[John]
>
> Because we start from the plain understanding of "quality" that everybody
> knows.
>
> [Arlo]
> Which is based in a western s/o worldview that a MOQ argues against.
>
>
John:

Hmmm... what means this "argues against" though.  It's obviously a
springboard and a sound support as far as it goes.  A necessity for climbing
higher, so we don't want to just obviate the s/o worldview, but to transcend
it.  Move beyond it, not eliminate it.  You gotta have the rest of the
mountain, to support the top.






> [John]
>
> "Are you teaching Quality?" wasn't a mystic or esoteric question for
> Phaedrus at the start of his journey.
>
> [Arlo]
> No it wasn't, it was a plain english question that problematized Pirsig's
> "common sense" view of Quality. It was this question that caused him to
> abandon that "common sense" view and articulate an answer that was radically
> different from the "common sense" meaning everyone else was using.
>
>
John:

So you agree with me, that the insight into a deeper MoQ reality, begins
with the plain sense of what the word "quality"  means to common
understanding.




> [John]
>
> Well in football, as well as in life, it's possible to gain a great deal of
> ground without actually getting anywhere.
>
> [Arlo]
> So you are saying that the phrase "backward progress" would be acceptable
> to you?



John:

Sure!  It's a little clunky, but it works.  Its different than standing
still, it's different than progressing.  It's a description of negative
progress.  That's a real phenomena.

Arlo:


Would you then say there is such a think as "forward regress"? The problem
> here is that the "common sense" view is that "progress" simply means
> movement, when in fact it means "movement, as towards a goal", or "forward
> movement".
>


John:  People use redumbdancies and double negatives all the time Arlo, and
while they may suck rhetorically, they do  qualify logically.

Arlo:

>
> Richard Lederer tells a great story about a sign on his campus that reads
> "No Trespassing Without Permission". When he tried to explain that "by
> definition the act of trespassing is committed without permission", he was
> met only with "polite smiles". "Now more than twenty-five years later, the
> signs still stand and so do their messages. Unauthorized visitors are still
> required to obtain permission before they trespass on our grounds." (The
> Miracle of Language)


Where would we be without a little picayune pedantry?

Take care,

John