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

[Arlo Bensinger]

[John]
The point I was trying to make, Arlo, is that according to the normal 
vernacular, quality IS an adjective that can be applied to certain things.

[Arlo]
Right, and if you want someone to understand a MOQ, you need to 
explain to them that this is "wrong". You impede understanding by 
saying "this is the wrong way to look at this, but keep using the 
word this way if you want".

[John]
Why must there only be one, orthodox approach?  Many fingers; one moon.

[Arlo]
Who said anything about "orthodox"? What, did you and Marsha forget 
your anti-paranoia meds this morning? Seriously. Jeez.

First you accuse me of promoting an "esoteric, secret language", then 
when I challenge that your response is to accuse me of pushing a 
singular "orthodox" approach to understanding. I assume Marsha's 
moronic "tyrannical German" and "Orwellian" and "though police" are 
not far behind.

[John]
Because we start from the plain understanding of "quality" that 
everybody knows.

[Arlo]
Which is based in a western s/o worldview that a MOQ argues against.

[John]
"Are you teaching Quality?" wasn't a mystic or esoteric question for 
Phaedrus at the start of his journey.

[Arlo]
No it wasn't, it was a plain english question that problematized 
Pirsig's "common sense" view of Quality. It was this question that 
caused him to abandon that "common sense" view and articulate an 
answer that was radically different from the "common sense" meaning 
everyone else was using.

[John]
Well in football, as well as in life, it's possible to gain a great 
deal of ground without actually getting anywhere.

[Arlo]
So you are saying that the phrase "backward progress" would be 
acceptable to you? Would you then say there is such a think as 
"forward regress"? The problem here is that the "common sense" view 
is that "progress" simply means movement, when in fact it means 
"movement, as towards a goal", or "forward movement".

Richard Lederer tells a great story about a sign on his campus that 
reads "No Trespassing Without Permission". When he tried to explain 
that "by definition the act of trespassing is committed without 
permission", he was met only with "polite smiles". "Now more than 
twenty-five years later, the signs still stand and so do their 
messages. Unauthorized visitors are still required to obtain 
permission before they trespass on our grounds." (The Miracle of Language)