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

[david buchanan]

Arlo said to John:

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'.

dmb says:
I think that's exactly right and well said too. This sort of excellent performance seriously undermines John's complaints about the failure of others to plainly articulate the MOQ. And when has Dan ever been anything less than 100% intelligible? I honestly cannot recall a single case. Andre is as plain and clear as any native speaker and he always dishes up the most relevant quotes too. 
Long story, short. I just don't buy that kind of criticism. There's no shortage of good explanations around here and your pithy rebuttal to John is fresh evidence of that. 


And grateful thanks for the free gift. I haven't received many in my past history but hopefully that'll change in my future days ahead.