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

[Arlo Bensinger]

[John]
I agree Arlo.  But all the weight of the endeavor falls upon "when 
articulated".  And when I articulate, I'm trying to be understood, in 
plain terms of common understanding. ... So what is it that we all 
experience, and even describe to one another as a "quality 
experience".  By this, we mean a "good" experience.

[Arlo]
I know what you *mean*, but by framing it this way you are certainly 
*not* helping the person you are talking to understand why a MOQ is a 
revolutionary, and better, way to think about the cosmos.

I don't know why for you its not "plain english" to simply say 
something like, "Our western approach has been historically based on 
a subject-object metaphysics, and our language reveals that. Within a 
MOQ, this worldview is reversed, so that Quality precedes subjects 
and objects, it is not something 'objective' nor is it something 
'subjective'. A MOQ says that Quality *is* experience, so a phrase 
like "quality experience" is not only unnecessarily redundant, but 
mistakenly adheres to the subject-object view that "quality" is an 
adjective that can be applied to certain 'things'."

How would something like this not be "plain english"? How is 
something like this "esoteric" or cryptic or evidencing a "secret language"?

Of course, I also refuse to use phrases like "free gift" and when 
people use it I ask them if they normal charge people for their 
gifts. And a few seasons back while watching a football game with a 
friend we heard the announcer say something about the runner's 
"forward progress". I made a comment about that ("is there any other 
kind?"), and my friend to this day says he can't hear that phrase 
without thinking how wrong it is.

Sometimes the best thing we can do for people is "problematize" their 
"common understanding"...