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

[Andre Broersen]

Arlo to Andre:

I guess this is my point, there is a world of difference between saying "a germ is bad" and "from our vantage, it is bad for a germ's pursuit of Quality to impede a human's pursuit of Quality". Or maybe
I'm just splitting hairs no one else sees as troublesome.

dmb:
I agree that "there is not a single case of "pushed" that cannot be restated or recontextualized as a "pull". I'd even agree that talking about Quality in the "negative" adds nothing important to the notion that Quality is the impetus towards betterness. It just reminds us that "better" is a relational term.

Andre:
Thank you both for these comments. It suggests to me once more the ineffability of Quality which remains in tact in this way.Pre-intellectual valuation is at once apprehended as negative/positive, high/low. As Pirsig says, this is not just a vague, woolley-headed, crypto-religious, metaphysical abstraction. It is an experience. It is not a judgement about experience. It is not a description of experience. (LILA, p 68).

Not this/not that. And it's good that it is like this/that, no?  ;-)