[MD] truth, again

[MarshaV]

Hi Mark, 

I better add that within the MoQ static patterns (objects of knowledge) may be ranked by what they value: inorganic, biological, social or intellectual.  

  
Marsha 



On Dec 4, 2012, at 2:40 AM, MarshaV wrote:

Hi Mark,

For me the MoQ is ontologically indeterminate (DQ), and epistemologically relativistic (sq), though "we can perceive some [patterns] to have more quality than others, but that we do so is, in part, the result our history and current patterns of values."  


Marsha 




On Dec 4, 2012, at 2:09 AM, 118 wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> 
> Yes, this is the Western approach.  Everything must be
> compartmentalized.  Thank you Aristotle!?
> 
> Ontology/epistemology can be analogized to DQ/SQ.
> 
> If we view knowledge as that which we create, which is appropriate to
> MoQ (see "ghosts of reason"), then the limits of knowledge are without
> boundary.  The nature is the human spirit (DQ), the method is logic,
> and the origin is Quality (DQ/SQ).
> 
> This is how Quality is used to provide answers.  Pirsig, of course,
> has many such examples, which is what Lila is all about.  It is a
> shame that some see Lila as a manifesto of some sort.  The examples
> are just that, not to be taken as "truth".  Lila teaches how to use
> Quality to solve problems.  It was never meant as dogma, Pirsig is too
> smart for that.  However, we get the preachers who read from the "good
> book" and tell us all to obey what is written.  There was a prophet
> about 600 years after Christ who said the same thing.
> 
> I am sure that Pirsig is more than a little disappointed at the turn
> Quality has taken.  He is probably also a bit ashamed at where this
> forum has gone.  His disciple has gone astray.  Well it happens to the
> best of them.  His quest for fame has done exactly what he predicted
> it would.
> 
> Mark
> 
> On Dec 3, 2012, at 12:59 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> e·pis·te·mol·o·gy
>> 
>> noun
>> a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> If, if, if ...
>> 
> 

 
___