[MD] Quality and the Higgs Field: An Analogy

[Andre Broersen]

Mark to Andre:

Well, with your post that I deleted much of, you reveal your ignorance concerning Quality.

Please, if you are part of some old guard of MoQ, then you have yet to step into what is happening.  You are past-tense.

Andre:
Nice one Mark. Reminds me of a quote I once read in an important book. On Jan 24 you said to Marsha: 'Let's tie Quality down like a tethered hot air balloon.  Must be possible'

The quote I am referring to is in ZMM (of course):

'It wasn't any particular point of view that outraged him so much as the idea that Quality should be subordinated to ANY point of view. The intellectual process was forcing Quality into its servitude, prostituting it. I think that was the source of his anger. (p 207)

There is a nice saying which goes something like 'the past is pregnant with the future' (in this sense I am indeed 'past-tense') and 'the future is pregnant with the past' ( many that say to me 'step into what is happening' I have found to be actually stepping into the past (SOM).

Mark:
Ham has provided input which has enabled greater progress in MoQ than any that has been posted in the last three years.

Andre:
Ham is harmless but he is SOM all the way.

Mark:
In terms of your claim that Quality does not act on anything.  You will notice that my statement was that Nature is Quality in action.

Andre:
This may be so Mark. I took your 'Quality in action' to mean a similar understanding to 'producing' something which implies that Dynamic Quality is a part of a cause and effect system. Since all cause and effect systems are part of static patterns Quality cannot be part of these.(see Annotn 56)
Perhaps I misunderstood your intention.

Mark (in response to my assertion that Quality has no source):

Well indeed Andre, now that was illuminating.  The truth is, that you have no idea of the MoQ, None.  I would be happy if you could show me some indication to the contrary.  How about a paragraph on what MoQ really is?  Sure, I dare you.  I won't hold my breath.

Andre:
No, do not hold it. If you are impressed with Ham's conclusion (as you clearly are, given your observation) that the MOQ has no basis whatsoever unless it finds some sort of source for Quality  (which has been his hang-up, hang-on for I do not know how many years), you have no idea about the basic premiss of the MOQ. It's as simple as this.

Mark:
Oh, and by the way, if you want to quote something out of Lila just to show how truthful you are, you are on the wrong path.If you support your truth with an imaginary truth, you are left on shifting sands.  There is no Quality there, or in your recent post.

Andre:
You may be pleased to know that I do not defend many things I have not directly experienced Mark. Just intellectualizing about all this stuff has its drawbacks. Read Finnegan's Wake? James Joyce is difficult and wonderful at the same time. What point are you trying to make? I am reasonable pragmatist.

And to make something very clear: I do not know anything about Quality. I am just glad it is. I do understand a bit of the MOQ though.