Hey Erin,
>
ERIN:
> 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.
>
> RICK:
I think you present what Pirsig was trying to do very well. And I think we
agree on what that was. I believe we only disagree as to whether his
example successfully supports his theory and proves what he says it does.
Indeed, it's all good(n), but it's not all good(adj). Pirsig thinks John
Wooden Leg was saying the dog was good(n). I find it far, far, more likely
that John Wooden Leg was saying the dog was good(adj). Damn homonyms!!!
But that's what makes horseracing, I guess... You decide for yourself.
rick
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