Erin and all,
>Hello Glenn,
>
>ERIN: Maybe I appreciate dialectic argument and irony.
>So are you saying we need to determine whether light is a wave or a particle
>before trying to understand dharmakaya.
No. When did I ever say this?
>GLENN:I suppose Jonathan's paper resonated with you in some 'acausal' way.
>
>ERIN: just considering the possiblity that something causes causality
>
>taken from 3WD post--
>Pirsig-SODV page 12
>"Quality is not just the result of a collision between subject
>and object. The very existence of subject and object themselves is
>deduced from the Quality event. The Quality event is the cause of the
>subjects and objects, which are then mistakenly presumed to be the cause
>of the Quality!"
I'm not sure what you think the 'something' is that causes causality, and
why this quote throws light on it, but since you bring it up, I'll comment
that this is another prime example of Pirsig's buggered prose. If you can
make sense out of this for me, you would be doing something no one else has
done to my satisfaction in the past three years on this forum.
First he says that Quality is the event that happens when subject
and object meet. Subjects and objects collide and cause Quality. Fine. I wish
he'd stopped there. Then he says Quality is not just this. S's and O's are
deduced from the Quality event. This is also OK, so long as he is talking
about *different* Quality events; otherwise his argument is circular.
But apparently it refers to the same event, because then he says that the
event that everyone presumes causes the Quality is actually the event that
causes the S's and O's, even though a few sentences back *he* was the one
claiming that S's and O's cause the Quality.
So we see the following progression in his argument:
1) The collision of S's and O's causes the Q event.
2) The Q event can also exist prior to the collision of S's and O's.
3) The event described in 1) causes the S's and O's.
What might we say about such an argument?
1) Western culture needs new, non-rational modes of thought to understand this.
2) Like quantum complementarity, it's weird but inescapable.
3) It's really deep, and mere mortals can't be expected to comprehend it.
4) Pirsig's argument is misinterpreted. With the correct interpretation it
is sensible.
5) It's rubbish, the product of confused thinking.
I like #5.
Glenn
--__________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
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 - 16:01:57 BST