In a message dated 5/13/02 1:14:15 PM GMT Daylight Time,
beasley@austarnet.com.au writes:
<< Squonk "the One is prior to beauty"
JB - Very deep water here. Beauty, like quality, is 'defined' in terms of
its opposite. To avoid this fatal error, Pirsig has to insist that Quality
cannot be defined, only experienced. If beauty too cannot be defined, only
experienced, then I wonder if we aren't just playing language games by even
trying to make a statement about which is prior. Can we compare the One with
anything?
>>
Hi John,
There are many things we experience but cannot define.
There are those who may wish to argue that we cannot define any experience at
all because things change.
Is change the only constant?
Well, the preSocratics went through all this and more.
The One is primary by reason of assuming something IS primary.
As thought emerges from the primary it goes without saying that we cannot say
ANYTHING about the primary. Nothing at all.
We can indicate it?
We can say much about beauty without defining it however, and this appears to
suggest that the primary is by definition, prime - for Beauty is Human but
the prime is not.
All the best,
Squonk.
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 - 16:02:15 BST