latt
this thing about being in possession of 'qualities' is generally a thorn in
the side, whether one is considering the 'doggishness of the dog' (finding
the general in the particular) or the quality of blue-ness. I must say, i
have a real problem with the whole notion of intrinsic properties (qualities
residing in things) - it reflects some deep conceptual inability, I feel. It
does seem much easier to say the quality has the thing every bit as much as
the thing has the quality. And that's without capitalising the 'Q'.
The stopgap proposals such 'quality occurs in the interaction', or resides
in the holistic thing-medium-perciever loop don't really do it for me.
Thinking about qualities as properties of the 'real' physical, concrete
world seems to be like pushing water uphill.
cheers
ppl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@cbvnol.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: 04 November 2000 19:03
Subject: Re: MD Pirsig's letter - A response
> Hi Dan and All:
>
> Your wrote:
>
> > Concepts of "betterness" arise Dynamically with our interaction in the
> > environment we inhabit but we come to equate "betterness" with things;
> > this thing is better than that thing. The MOQ states Quality does not
> > reside in things, however. "Quality is an event."
>
> Pirsig wrote in "Subjects, Objects, Data and Values (SODV):
>
> "But some things are better than others, that is, they have more
> quality."
>
> Also:
>
> "Obviously some things are better than others."
>
> I agree that Quality doesn't "reside" within a thing. Rather a thing is
> a pattern of Quality--Quality being a separate category from things
> like subjects and objects. In this sense, "It isn't Lila that has
> quality; its Quality that has Lila. Nothing can have Quality." (Lila,
> Chap. 11.)
>
> The word "have" causes problems. In MOQ terms, it would be
> wrong to say a certain dog has Quality but ok to say, "That's a high
> Quality dog," as John Wooden Leg says in the last chapter of Lila.
>
> Our SOM habit is to attach Quality to our names of things rather
> than see Quality as the thing itself, i.e. a pattern of static Quality.
>
> Am I making sense? Are in basic agreement? Thanks.
>
> Platt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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