Rick,
Although I had the same unsatisfactory feeling about reading "good is a noun"
I still don't think I am convinced of your "hatchet job"
Maybe Pirsig wanted to get under our skins.
I think that I got a little hung up on this idea of exploring culture
viewpoints. But I would like to approach this in another way.
Pirsig wanted to show that good was outside of our classifcation system to
show that substance was not absolute reality. He did do this and just used
Indian/Greek as an example. I now think that limiting this insight to these
two cultures has been what we are getting messed up on.
The classification system (you don't need to think it is Greek) that Laverne
was asking the question was
Inanimate--- Animate
Animal
Dog
Cockerspaniel
The question what "kind" of dog was supposed to be anwered by going to the
lower level. Just as the question what "kind of animal "should" be responded
with dog.
John wooden leg bypassed this classification system by answering good.
The only way I would agree that good is in this classification system
is if you put it above Inanimate- Animate level.
Well lookee here it shows "good is a noun" after all.
Quality can not be broken down into good and bad. Those are adjectives.
Quality is a noun. It's all Good.
Feel free to get your hatchet out again but i really didn't reduce the quality
of the statement "good is a noun"
But I do appreciate you from helping to break from this Indian/Greek
standpoint.
He was just using a "story" to express this insight.
Erin
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