Justin, Mder's
> And next, Quality is not an attribute. Remember, from
> Pirsig's writings, that Quality is not just an object,
> and not just the subject- It is both. Everything is
> created by Quality.
> (Question- does that make objects with less Quality
> less real? It doesn't seem to change its objective
> scientific status...)
If this comment is based on my "strawman" post you are right quality is
not an "attribute" per se.
However trapped in our language as we are it is more like an "attribute"
or rather a collection of "attributes",or pattern of values, than
anything else I can come up with. One of the problems that arises in
trying to compare Pirsig to other philosophers,such as James, is that
they are firmly rooted and accepting of subjects and objects. So while
James in many particular ways says things analogous to Pirsig they never
quite square with him on a quote by quote basis because Pirsig has
redefined the term "Quality" to be inherently pluralistic while the
English language definition is inherently singular. Over the years I
have from time to time suggested that what Pirsig has proposed is
changing the primary definition of quality from:
1. any of the features that make something what it is; characteristic
element; ATTRIBUTE.
to
1.[ALL] of the features that make something what it is;
works for me.
3WD
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 - 16:00:55 BST