From: Erin N. (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Wed Nov 20 2002 - 22:32:47 GMT
>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
>Hi Matt:
>
>> Why would you think I would disagree with anything they had written? I've
>> never found anything wrong with making Quality equal Reality. Making
>> Quality ubiquitous, I have no problem. Making Quality absolute, I have a
>> problem.
>
>I'm glad you agree with Horse, Rick, Jonathan and me. I was under the
>impression that you thought reality=linguistics, not Quality. Just shows
>how far off I've been.
>
>Now I'm confused by why you have a problem with Quality being
>absolute. If it's always everywhere (ubiquitous) like reality, it's absolute
>is it not?
>
>Platt
deja vu
It has been argued before that we can't know
whether Quality is absolute or not.
There is a specific quote, can't remember where,
about writing with a pencil not pen.
I think you were challenged before to show where
Pirsig says we know quality is always absolute and
weren't able to as far as I recall.....
Just wanted to point out that Matt wasn't alone in
this argument and you haven't made your argument.
With Pirsig emphasizing pragmatism I 'absolutely' don't
understand why you 'always' do this.
erin
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 : Wed Nov 20 2002 - 22:27:15 GMT