> Mark,
>
> We are having a discussion here about the MOQ, not whatever it is you
> are talking about. Unless you have something pertinent to add, please
> refrain from disrupting it.
>
> Thank you,
> Dan
Ant McWatt comments:
Now that seems a reasonable request to me. I'm sure with Mark being a PhD (at Imperial College - of all places!) will take on board that request in good faith.
Best wishes,
Ant
>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:06 AM, 118 <ununoctiums@gmai...> wrote:
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > On Jul 3, 2012, at 11:46 PM, Dan Glover <daneglover@gmai...> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dan:
> >> Yes good point. Still, I am thinking here more along the lines of
> >> ideas coming before matter. Working from within that context, wouldn't
> >> it perhaps be better to say it is a high quality idea that preferences
> >> start to appear with the inorganic level
> >
> > I appreciate what Dan writes, but would it not be more correct to say that "ideas come before the idea of matter"?
> >
> > This would make the statement more consistent with what Pirsig writes (remember the example of gravity).
> >
> > In the same line of logic, the idea of Quality must come before Quality. Let us not forget that Quality is a concept which is being expressed through a metaphysics. There cannot be Quality before it is conceived of. Remember the ghost of reason. One cannot put the cart before the horse,
> >
> > We create these things with our minds, they cannot create us. Dynamic Quality is created for metaphysical purposes to juxtapose static quality. We cannot rightly say that dynamic quality creates static quality since it did not exist before that. This is what Pirsig goes through great pains to explain.
> >
> > Let us not create a religion out of Quality. This is metaphysics. It employs logic.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Mark
