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

[John Carl]

Arlo,

You have a certain correctness here but it misses my point I think.


> [Arlo]
> "Describing Quality" is the experience. The "description", symbols arranged
> on
> a page, is an artifact of that experience.
>
> So, describing *a* metaphysics of Quality is an experience of Quality, yes.
>



John:

"an experience of Quality" in the way I meant it, has the connotation of a
concomitant experience of pleasure.  A good feeling, as well as a pedantic
correctness.  Peace of mind is not an inconsequential byproduct of the
metaphysical process - it's the whole thing in the MoQ.

 Arlo:


> Of course, the phrase "metaphysics of Quality" is redundant, and so is
> "experience of Quality"....
>
>
John:

 And redundancies are not high quality experience, right?  They're sort of
boring, in fact.  That's why the term redundant carries a pejorative
connotation.  But I'm thinking then, by using the term "experience of
Quality" in the way that I do, I'm pointing at that phrase in a way which
transcends the redundancy, due to the connotations of the phrase.  If I say
a movie or book or conversation (or a dog) was "an experience of quality",
then you get what I mean in a way that is more than mere metaphysical
definition of experience.  You get that I mean it was subjectively to me, a
good experience - I enjoyed it.  "That's a good dog" is a statement of
layered meaning, in this conversational context.

Arlo:

Describing a metaphysics is part of real, lived experience.
>
> And of course, "describing a metaphysics" is redundant too...
>
> "Describing" is a part of real, lived experience.
>
>
John:

Yes, it is... and yet it isn't.  In some ways, intellectual descriptions of
experience are sort of avoidance of "real, lived experience".  It's more
along the lines of a menu rather than the food.

I guess this point is only as important as you are how  hungry you are.

 I sort of am.

Yours,

John