>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
>>Hello Glenn,
>GLENN:No. When did I ever say this?
ERIN: - MY POINT WAS THAT CONTRADICTIONS ARE NECESSARY SOMETIMES-- UNLESS YOU
WANT TO OVERSIMPLIFY SOMETHING. DID YOU READ THE MARDER ESSAY? PERHAPS PART
OF UNDERSTANDING SOMETHING IS UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE OPPOSITE OR WHAT IT IS
NOT. SO DON'T YOU THINK YOUR ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND CAUSALITY MAY INVOLVE AN
UNDERSTANDING OF ACAUSALITY.
>>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!"
Okay I am going to use a language example but I do not mean for it to be the
same as what Pirsig is saying...it just a step in understanding
Joe bounced the ball.
(causality-- agent-action - object-- John caused the ball to bounce)
Now imaging bouncing was the Quality event. The very existence of John and the
ball is deduced from the bouncing. I know this will appear nonsense. But just
try to get out of the box for a second and think that it is nonsense due to
filters.
When I read your interpretation it sounds like you are thinking of Quality as
another object-- try and reinterpret it as Pirsig says a Quality event.
Erin
>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
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