From: Patrick van den Berg (cirandar@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Nov 19 2002 - 02:39:37 GMT
Hi Kevin,
I Liked your comments on Pirsig Literalism... But to contribute my two
cents to the answer to the question at hand, whether or not Humans are
uniquely capable of responding to DQ: We humans, through the use of
symbols and languages in general, delve deep into static constructs,
like in searching for a TOE or even when we gossip and judge about a
mutual acquaintance. Mammels don't have the knife of language.
Pirsig admits at some point, that his pre-occupation with DQ gets him
nowhere. He has to acknowledge static qualities. Well, doesn't he
eventually conclude that evolution to new DQ is only possible if it can
'stand' on static qualities?
We, humans, as experts in static-qualities-making, then, are pretty good
in creating the opportunities to allow new DQ's to be experienced,
standing on the sq's language creates.
Friendly greetings, Patrick.
Ps. Not sure if I agree with my own answer given here by the way.
Language has a tendency to cut up reality in too many pieces; so much
that we can't taste the original 'cake' anymore. Humans take one certain
food (let's say, the cake the 'MoQ' for example!) and spend a lot of
time to cut it up in certain ways before they eat it. Mammals, on the
other hand, spend much less time in cutting the metaphorical food up in
little pieces, and instead spend more time in really eating the food. In
this respect, non-humans such as non-linguistic mammals experience DQ
more frequently.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
http://webhosting.yahoo.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 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 19 2002 - 02:39:49 GMT