Hey Marco,
You wield English more powerfully than many native speakers. I wouldn't
worry about it too much if I were you.
MARCO:
> Indeed. A thing that has no value does not exist, he also writes, so it is
> correct to state that according to the MOQ even Hitler and Bin Laden have
> value (are good). He is just trying to state that instead of simply
> attaching an adjective (a definition) "Good" or "Bad", "Sane" or "Mad" to
> Hitler, Bin Laden, Gandhi, M.L. King, Phaedrus, Lila.... we should try to
> investigate the reasons for they are what they are.
RICK:
You've hit on one of the more difficult consequences of
'Pirsig's Law' that a thing that has no value does not exist. That
consequence being of course that if a thing that has no value does not
exist, then anything that exists must have value. And since
Value=Good=Quality everything that exists not only has value, but is
Good/Quality (does anyone else see flashes of Voltaire's Dr. Pangloss in
this? [i.e. "It's the best of all possible worlds so everything must be
good."]).
MARCO:
It is not the man who is
> good or bad, it is the process of quality seeking that creates a pattern
of
> behavior we know as the man.
RICK:
If I understand what you're getting at... this seems like hairsplitting to
me. If it's the pattern of behavior that we know as the man, and the
pattern of behavior can be described as good or bad... then what could it
mean to say 'It is not the man who is good or bad...."??? Is this to
suggest that man is a moral 'tabla rosa' before he behaves? If so, could
such a state possibly last long enough to be worthy of consideration?
> >
> MARCO:
> But partly that's what philosophers do. They use old words to bear new
> meanings . Just think of Plato's ideas ("Eidos" was simply the Greek term
> for image). The history of philosophy is full of examples like that.....
> I don't think he has randomly chosen four letters. And he was not trying
to
> expand the meaning of the word "Good". Quite the contrary. He was trying
to
> explore the inexplicable using the words he had available. He used
Quality,
> Value, Good as he thinks that these terms are closer to the big "?". He
> thinks that these terms can better explain us the kernel of reality...
> better than Idea, Substance, Being, Meaning, God, Soul, Truth, Tao or
> whatever else.....
>
> of course, he could be wrong. As well as me.....
RICK:
I don't know that either of you are wrong. But I suspect that rather than
show us how the word "good" sheds light on the '?' --- Pirsig has stripped
'good' of its meaning so that the word itself has become a '?'. And since
one '?' resembles another... it can seem as though he's shown how an
undefined something (the '?') is like a defined something (Good); When in
fact, all he may have done is show how an undefined something (the '?') is
like another undefined something (a definitionless 'Good').
I hope that makes some sense to you.
having fun,
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 - 16:01:45 BST