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

[118]

Hey David,

On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 6:21 AM, David Thomas
<combinedefforts at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Mark,
>
>> Do I sense a hint of sarcasm here?
> Moi? shirley you jest.
>> Perhaps disdain for the spiritual?
>>  If we follow the path that Pirsig discusses starting with Plato, this
>> is where we end up.  Welcome to the 21st Century in Western
>> civilization.
> I believe that is one of his more recent interviews or commentaries Pirsig
> noted that their is no place in the MoQ for "spirit" or "faith"
>
[Mark]
If that is true, then what is Quality?  As something that cannot be
defined, how are we to approach it?  Certainly logic cannot play a
part.

We must be faithless in our endeavor, yet you point to Pirsig's words
with faith of your own.  Don't you see the incogruity of what you are
saying?

Is MoQ somehow real without people believing it is?

Are you ascribing to some kind of Truth with Quality?

I would have to say that I find your statements somewhat unbelievable.
 Yet, it stands to reason (I guess) that I cannot have faith in what
you write; the spirit of your post is nonexistent, just words on
paper, nothing more behind that.  Or is there something behind these
words of yours?  Are you actually somebody who has spirit?

Pirsig does not want MoQ to be confused with a dogmatic religion,
fine, I agree with that.  Most, however, who say this have no
experience with religion beyond that which they disdain as not
scientific enough.  Yet, MoQ is not scientific, it is a rhetorical
projection of the world (and Grand at that).

Let's get a little deeper than quotes from Pirsig shall we?
>
> 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
>