Has Pirsig found a good way to place Quality within the framework of a rational metaphysics? Dealing with philosophers, one would very often feel not. I feel it is the philosophers who need to wake up!
The key word is "rational". Philosophers insist upon "rational", and in that regard Pirsig fails. By the very nature of Quality, no "rational" system could contain it. However, that is not to say that Pirsig's discussion of Quality is not somewhat enlightening. Not even the Tao Te Ching can tell you what the Tao is, but after reading it I felt that a pretty accurate message was implied.
We can try to capture Quality with static descriptions, and we may improve each time we try. Our metaphysics may evolve like our notions of geometry and physics. But while Quality may be our approachable limit, it is our unattainable limit, when it comes to strictly logical terms. Quality is the "Ultimate Logic". But whenever we try to look at it, it appears as Chaos.
Chaos is nothing more than our perception of an ultimate logic, Quality, Tao, where our ideas have been categorized and subcategorized so much that each idea is its own category with its own rule, and suddenly it looks like we have made no progress -- Chaos.
_________________________________________________________________
Sign-UP for your FREE Backpacker Email at http://www.backpacker.com/email
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
P.S. Click here to get a FREE trial issue of BACKPACKER: http://www.backpacker.com/subs/home.rhtml/I9KF001
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:25 BST