RE: MD An Introduction to the Metaphysics of Quality

From: Mangiola Nunzio arivia.kom (
Date: Wed May 23 2001 - 09:47:02 BST

I disagree with you seeing that this form of (Leaving out) is what
got us into this mess in the first place.

Why I think that there is no stated and proved opinion is because
it proves that everybody is right sooner or later. Quality is not fixed.

> ----------
> From: Daniel Colonnese[]
> Reply To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 9:07 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: MD An Introduction to the Metaphysics of Quality
> First, let me say that I have some technical difficulties following all
> the
> MOQ posts. You see have this lousy hotmail account that gets flooded with
> "bulk mail" and some of the MOQ stuff is automatically deleted. Plus it's
> a
> bitch to sort through all the junk mail to find you guys' gems of
> philosophical wisdom. So if I could unsubscribe my hotmail address and
> add
> which is the email I actually use nowadays, I would be
> able to contribute more frequently, but you probably don't want me to
> contribute any more frequently.
> Anyway, I think that a hundred years from now there should be a "Quality"
> section in Barnes and Noble right between the "Classics" and the
> "Non-Fiction" sections. The Quality books should be the opposite of the
> contemporary "value-free" literature in that they should all argue for
> some
> sort of behavior or attitudes from their audiences. Nowadays this kind of
> thing would just come off as being preachy since people aren't accustomed
> to
> the idea that morals are something they should study. Like the "Quality"
> history book wouldn't just say what happened, but would say whether it was
> moral or not. The "Quality" cookbook wouldn't just tell you how to make
> some dish, but would tell you whether it was (vegetarian) moral to do so.
> One thing that strikes me about Lilia's Child is that the book doesn't
> really take a stand on anything. Every argument can be dismissed as
> someone's subjective opinion. Diana says this, Richard says that, Dan
> says
> this. Who's right? Well who am I to judge? One unified opinion is a lot
> stronger than a discussion with lots of participants.
> So, I've been thinking about what An Introduction to The Metaphysics of
> Quality Book would look like, and I think it should be persuasive. There
> will be enough people to criticize this kind of stuff without us pointing
> out our own shortcomings. Like if you open up your Introduction to
> Physics
> textbook it doesn't say well so-and-so believes this theory and so-and-so
> believes this other theory and we don't really know who's right. That's
> for
> the advanced book. The introduction just says point blank this is the way
> things are. Now go do the review exercises and check you work because
> there's only one right answer. I think that the MOQ textbook should have
> that same tone. The indisputable truth handed down from god tone. And if
> we have to sacrifice the subtleties and ambiguities of the MOQ, that's ok.
> In the into the physics textbook they leave out all the subtleties because
> they would be lost on the freshman anyway.
> Here's an example.
> List the follow patterns of Value from most moral to least moral:
> A. Cow
> B. Chimp
> C. Rock
> D. Fern
> Regards,
> Daniel Colonnese
> >From:
> >Reply-To:
> >To: <>
> >Subject: RE: MD An Introduction to the Metaphysics of Quality
> >Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 08:27:48 +0800
> >
> >Dan, Jonathan, Richard and all
> >
> >Dan wrote:
> >
> > > I have left out some great posts and even whole discussions due to
> size
> > > constraints, mostly. It is already a 450 page book. I just cannot
> >include
> > > everything. In deciding which posts to use and which to leave out, I
> >would
> > > just chose one I liked and try to see where fit best. Some posts were
> > > unclear at the beginning and were left out for that reason, but as
> time
> >went
> > > by I became very familiar with the archives and just knew where each
> > > belonged. Unfortunately some of the early work is still there and
> needs
> > > correcting but I am working on it.
> >
> >You see, reading over the comments on the LC from newer members
> >it's clear that they *think* that they have read an honest summary of the
> >archives. Yet that is not the truth at all.
> >In my opinion some of the best material was left out and
> >some of the worst given prominence. It's misleading and unfair
> >on the original participants. (And for those of you who aren't
> >participants just stop for a moment and consider how you'd feel
> >if it was your words that had been taken out of your mouth and
> >cut and pasted in ways that you never intended.)
> >
> >Dan:
> > > What I do think extremely cool is Robert Pirsig's interest in
> >the work. What
> > > does that mean to all the contributors? (if you don't mind me
> >asking.) Would
> > > anyone like to see Robert Pirsig's responses to some of the questions
> >raised
> > > in LC? I know I would.
> >
> >
> >Of course people are interested in Pirsig's responses. But at
> >the same time it seems like a waste of opportunity if he only
> >responds to old posts, and only the ones that Dan has
> >'selected'. I suppose comments on posts I made four years ago
> >may be of some interest, but it's pointless to take them so
> >seriously because I no longer hold many of those opinions. Nor
> >do I believe the other participants in the dialog do. In the
> >years since then we have all revised and expanded our ideas many
> >times over.
> >
> >And, of course, Pirsig already has responded to LC. But of all
> >the wonderful questions he could have answered, he responded
> >with some very elementary remarks to that idiot Struan. Yet, who
> >can blame him? When you read LC Dan has skewed things to make it
> >look like Struan was the only one who ever questioned the MOQ.
> >Not only is that completely untrue, but Struan's objections were
> >badly thought-out, uninformed and unrepresentative of the group.
> >All Struan ever did was be more rude than anyone else. You can
> >say, well at least Pirsig responded, but why settle for second
> >best? Hundreds of people have asked intelligent and relevant
> >questions about the MOQ, why do they not merit a response?
> >If we're going to ask Pirsig questions, let's first gather
> >some consensus on what are the most important things to ask.
> >Then maybe we could put together a letter spelling out the
> >things that concern us. That would let all members, old and new,
> >polite and rude, have a say. Surely that's more efficient for us
> >and for him.
> >
> >And Dan, style is the least of an editor's jobs, in fact it's
> >usually handled by the most junior proofreader. The primary role
> >an editor plays is in identifying the objectives of a piece of
> >writing and shaping it to meet those objectives. In the case of
> >an MOQ book you would be asking questions like
> >
> >Why does this book need to be written?
> >Who is the audience?
> >What message is it sending out?
> >What is the best format for this message?
> >How will it be positioned?
> >
> >By your own admission you only have the vaguest idea of what the
> >point of LC is. And yet, that is the most important question to ask!
> >Believe me, LC would be ripped to shreds in the marketplace,
> >and anyone whose name is attached to it will look
> >like a fool.
> >
> >Jonathan:
> > > I still think that there is value in doing some more serious writing
> in
> >the form
> > > of essays on the MOQ web site. Personally, I have a few ideas that
> >intend to
> > > compile into another essay, but I have yet to find the time and enegy
> >for it. I
> > > think that all of us should be thinking in these terms. Maybe some of
> >the essays
> > > can be worked up to form chapters of a book.
> >
> >This kind of approach sounds much better to me - properly referenced and
> >carefully written essays will let us present a
> >much clearer view of opinions.
> >
> >
> >Richard wrote:
> > > Diana--- Just a thought.... I noticed that one of your criticisms of
> LC
> >was
> > > that the posts were "outdated." This may see, obvious, but while
> they
> >may
> > > be outdated to you, they aren't for anyone else in the world who has
> >never
> > > read them. Imagine if everyone who participated here read LC... it
> >would
> > > save new members and all who are intersted in things MoQ from being
> >forced
> > > to reinvent the wheel for themselves... and it would save dozens and
> >dozens
> > > of redundant posts asking questions on topics and subjects that have
> >been
> > > 'done to death'.... (people could still invent their own wheels and
> ask
> >all
> > > the questions they'd like of course... they just wouldn't be forced
> to).
> > LC
> > > could be a static latch for the early thoughts of this forum. And once
> >we've
> > > latched, our freedom to explore new territory is increased.
> >
> >Yes latching is important. That's something I've pushed for from
> >the very start and that is why I'm working on a FAQ. In MF we
> >have already identified a list of the questions that come up
> >over and over again. We've divided that list into sections and
> >we're working our way through it answering these questions one
> >at a time. Quite a good idea actually.
> >
> >
> >Diana
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >MOQ.ORG -
> >Mail Archive -
> >MD Queries -
> >
> >To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> >
> >
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> Mail Archive -
> MD Queries -
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

Mail Archive -
MD Queries -

To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:17 BST