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

[Arlo Bensinger]

[John]
But I'm thinking then, by using the term "experience of Quality" in 
the way that I do... You get that I mean it was subjectively to me, a 
good experience - I enjoyed it.

[Arlo]
An "experience of Quality" can also be a low-value experience. 
Falling into a vat of acid is an "experience of Quality", just not 
the type of Quality one would typically "prefer".

What you should say is maybe "an experience of high Quality". This 
avoids the redundant "experience of Quality" and adds the particular 
subjective appraisal you are making.

I'm nitpicking again, but I think when we are reconceptualizing 
"Quality as experience" we have to rethink how those words change 
from their common use in non-MOQ language.

[John]
"That's a good dog" is a statement of layered meaning, in this 
conversational context.

[Arlo]
"Good" and "Quality" are common "synonyms", but I don't think this is 
how the terms are used within a MOQ where Quality is experience. Good 
and bad are value appraisals that are context dependent on the level 
of the pattern and the immediate situation the appraisal occurs within.

"That's a good dog" may be "true" to Pirsig and his Indian companion, 
but I wonder if the rabbit that dog just killed and ate would make a 
similar appraisal? (Yes, I know in LILA there is no mention of the 
dog eating a rabbit... lol).

[John]
In some ways, intellectual descriptions of experience are sort of 
avoidance of "real, lived experience".

[Arlo]
How is "metaphysic-ing" any less a real, lived experience than 
painting or dancing or eating or whatever?

How is the artifact of that experience (a book) any more of an 
avoidance of experience than the artifact of painting (a picture)?

I think the Buddha rests just as comfortably in the passages of a 
metaphysics as in the gears of a motorcycle (or petals of a flower)...