Hello everyone
Richard Budd wrote:
>
> As for Struan, his critique is (unfortunately) right on the money. Aside
> from the brief reference to harmony, Pirsig adds no additional support for
> the propostion that Quality=Reality. The issue he does address resolves
> itself pretty easily... After all, I've never met anyone who would deny (in
> every sense) that somethings are better than others. Has anyone?
Hi Richard
I wouldn't go quite that far. After all, following Struan's "right on
the money" argument a one dollar bill and a five dollar bill are equally
worthless (to Struan) and therefore neither is better than the other.
While it is true that five and ten pound notes are "worthless" here in
the States as legal tender I've yet to find any of them dumped in the
trash can. In my opinion, Pirsig's money analogy is so simple it is easy
to overlook the complex issues raised by it and to be dismissive of his
whole argument.
To answer your question, yes, I have met those who would deny some
things are better than others. Everyone, as a matter of fact. By our
very act of perception we use a static filter (what Struan might call a
built in quality detector) to block out irrelevant and inconsequential
data which would otherwise overwhelm our senses. It's not that the data
we perceive is "better" than the data we do not, but rather we are
preconditioned to perceive.
For example, is green "better" than blue? Is the light we see "better"
than, say x-rays or infrared? I would suggest a reading of Part 3 in
Lila will shed much light on what Robert Pirsig is attempting to get
across in his letter to Bodvar.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Dan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:50 BST