I've always thought good was a noun!
I agree entirely about that "final insight". When I picked up Lila again
recently, just before the last time I reread it, I looked at the last 2
pages first and I remember being somehat unimpressed. If that was the
summary I figured I would just have to go ahead and reread the whole thing.
Which turned out to be a very good idea as it happens - these mailing lists
didn't exist the first time I read it and it got me looking online.
Ross.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Valence" <valence10@hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 6:26 AM
Subject: MD Good is already a noun
> Hey all,
> The final insight offered by Pirsig in LILA is that if you had to boil
> the MoQ down to one sentence, it would be "Good is a noun." Personally, I
> was never a big fan of this reduction. It reads cryptically and is
> virtually unintelligible to one who is not already familiar with LILA, and
> so is of questionable value as a summary or main point of any kind (go
> ahead, try it on your friends, go up to them and say 'good is a noun' and
> see if anyone is instantly stunned by your deep metaphysical acuity).
> Anyway, I was recently digging through Webster's dictionary, and I was
> slightly disappointed to discover that Pirsig's final insight in LILA is
> somewhat less than ground breaking...
>
> I copied this from Webster's II New College Dictionary---
>
> good (adj):
> (1) having desirable or positive qualities
> (2) serving the desired end
> (3)(a) not ruined or spoiled (b) being in excellent condition
> (4)(a) better than average
> (5) of high quality
> (6) handsome
> (7) beneficial
> (8) skilled: competent
> (9) thorough: compete
> (10) safe: sure....
> good (n):
> (1)(a) something that is good (b) a valuable or useful aspect or part
> (2) beneficial: welfare
> (3) virtue: goodness
>
> Yes, that's right. According to the dictionary, the least original and
> least dynamic reference for language in existence... Good is already a
noun,
> and always has been. While its primary definition is given as an
adjective,
> the secondary definition is quite clearly, a noun. Could it be that the
> editor's of Webster's have had the same deep philosophical and
metaphysical
> insights and epiphanies that Phaedrus had??? Could they possibly have
> already figured out the intricacies of the MoQ and thus expanded their
> definition of Good to include the 'MoQ in a sentence'???? Or could it be
> that 'Good is a noun' is really worth zilch a metaphysical, philosophical
or
> linguistic insight???? It's anyone's guess. And just so there's no
> confusion....
>
> quality (n):
> (1) essential character [nature]
> (2)(a) An inherent or distinguishing attribute [property], (b) A character
> trait.
> (3)(a) Superiority of kind, (b) Degree or grade of excellence
> (4)(a) High social standing (b) the upper class
> (5) Timbre, as determined by overtones
> (6) The character of a vowel sound determined by size and shape of the
oral
> cavity and the amount of resonance with which it is produced
> (7) The positive or negative character of a proposition [logic]
> -(adj) Superior of its kind
>
>
> Good always was a noun,
> Quality too,
> so much for a one line MoQ.
>
> rick
> ps
> the preceding should be seen as a dig only at the last paragraph of LILA,
> and nothing else.
>
>
> 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
>
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 - 16:01:43 BST