[MD] just fishing (for truth)

[X Acto]

>
> [Mark]
> I am most confused by your last statement: "A metaphysics based on Quality
> is the development of meaning in experience it is the perpetual inquiry of
> what are the best things in life."  So, a metaphysics based on Quality is
> one of creating meaning.  How is this any different to any other
> metaphysics?  It also seems that you think MOQ is for determining what is
> best.  How does this work exactly.  I am simply asking you to further
> expand on your statements so that I can understand what you mean by
> Quality.
>
> [Ron replies]
> I chose the term "develop" over "create" because I wanted to emphasize
> that what
> I see MoQ doing is clarify meaning, which is how it is different from any
> other metaphysic.
> That is also how it helps to determine what is best. For certainly gaining
> a better
> understanding of what we believe we already know is more valueable than
> not.
>

[Mark:]  OK, we can go along this track.  At least I can tell how you get to
where you are going to end up with this.

You make an interesting point.  To "clarify meaning".  I assume that such
meaning is related to Quality.  Perhaps you should start even farther back
than where you do.  What exactly do you mean by "meaning", and what does
"clarification" mean in this case?  All metaphysics are meaningful, but I
think you are going down into the realm of meaning itself.  This should be
an instructive discussion for me, I am here to learn you opinion.  Could
you structure your "meaning" for me in a logical way?  I have provided such
structure in the past.  If you are working towards an optimal form of SQ
where it comes to Quality, I am all for it.
 
[Ron]
I think we can say that "meaning" is Quality and that what be mean by "better"
is "clarity". To clarify, to render more intelligible is to increase usefulness in
action and I am entering into the realm of meaning itself because it seems all
our theories revolve around the logical structure of actions, how they fit together
why they are useful and successful. Now you have used the term "intent"
and I think the explanation begins to turn toward that subject if we pursued
the explanation of Quality further. 
 
[Mark]
When you say "how [MOQ] helps to determine what is best", you are
suggesting that through a metaphysics we can determine what is best.  I am
fine with this line of philosophical rhetoric. It can be said that the hand
of MOQ is one of providing structure to Quality, thus making it a
metaphysics of Quality.  We will have to somehow clarify how this fits in
with the idea that we all know what is good and what is bad.  I do not
believe we want MOQ to turn into a dogmatic religion where we can not ask
questions of it.
 
[Ron]
We all know what we like and dislike, our like and dislikes develope
experience. The more complex collection of prefferences are result
of successful actions and this is where it meets the explanation of evolution
by a natural selection. Getting back to the "metaphysic" topic of MoQ
regarding dogma, if what we mean by an "MoQ" is a clarity in meaning
then it's aim, it's "intent" IS the virtue of inquirey. One might argue at this
point that the drive towards inquirey is an evolutionary drive towards stability,
But that may be a different topic.
 
 
[Mark]
This phrase "what we believe we already know" seems a bit out of place in
terms of MOQ.  Could you explain what you mean by that, and how it relates
to Quality?  This is no trap, I am genuinely interested in this perspective
of Quality.  I assume you are separating "belief" and "meaning", although I
do not quite see how, with the little you gave me. 
 
[Ron]
Exactly, I'm heading toward the separation of belief and meaning, belief in 
the regard of being formed by the static rigid body of cultural knowledge 
"What we believe we already know" but the reflection apon the meaning
behind those beliefs, those values, their clarification, and placing that clarity
into action into success in intent is living life at it's best.
 
 
.