Hi Christopher,
I have no problems with what you say.
I was merely pointing out that many philosophers insist that quality is
contained.
Talking to them is a little like banging your head against a wall.
In a message dated 7/27/01 1:43:44 AM GMT Daylight Time,
native_son@backpacker.com writes:
<< Subj: Re: MD Quality vs Tao
Date: 7/27/01 1:43:44 AM GMT Daylight Time
From: native_son@backpacker.com (Christopher McClain)
Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
Reply-to: moq_discuss@moq.org
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
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.
>>
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