Hey Erin,
You wrote:
> My last email was asking you if you can show me where he has claimed to
> expand the definition of good? Is it possible that good (N) was something
> that was dormant and Pirsig revived it without expanding it? What if good
(n)
> was unused and un appreciated in comparison to good (adj) (i bet there are
> people who don't even know good is a (n)) So is it possible that he
> "reconstructed" the definition by putting good (n) as more prominent and
> showing this to his readers?
>
Rick:
Possible? Of course. Anything is possible. But it would be a very
curious type of 'reconstruction'. Pirsig's use of Good as noun is quite
different from the dictionary's good(n). The dictionary's good(n) is
clearly related to the adjective (ex. Superman works for the common good),
Pirsig's is not. As we have discussed several times already, Pirsig's
Good(n) is just as much a part of things that are bad(adj) as things that
are good(adj).
You may claim that Pirsig has.... 'expanded'....
'deepened'....'broadened'.... 'revived'... 'reconstructed' or 'whatevered'
the definition of 'Good'. But all I see is an out and out replacement, and
no one has yet pointed at any evidence to the contrary.
And just to head off a retread over this same ground for the Nth
time----- 'evidence to the contrary' would require showing what it is about
the concept that Pirsig calls 'Good(n)' that warrants the referent
'Good(n)', as opposed to '?', or 'X', or 'smurfy', or 'Runaway Jim', or
absolutely any other conceivable name in the universe.
Wait.... Yes!!! That's it!!! That's the homerun. Over the fences....
For Pirsig, 'Good' is a proper name!!!!!!!
nuff said.
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 - 16:01:46 BST