From: Pi (pi@mideel.ath.cx)
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 05:23:43 BST
Hi August,
I would have to disagree. I don't think there is any thing called
"absolute perfection". A tree is not a tree (as we usually define it) to a
person who has never seen one. The tree is different for this person.
Perhaps this person is blind and only knows a tree by the way it sounds
(during a windy night) or the way it feels. It is a perfect tree for this
person; Just like how it is a perfect tree for you. But it is *not*
absolute.
Similarly, 'a' is just a bunch of squigly lines to a person who doesn't
read english (or any syntactically similar language). Perhaps it is not
even a bunch of lines for this person if they do not know the concept
of lines! 'a' is still "perfect" for this person.
Anyway, the real point I want to stress with these examples is that
absolute perfection does not exist because we all do not share
intellectual patterns. If we did, there would be no need for a discussion
forum. ;) An object you touch/see/feel/smell/taste is only there as a
static intellectual pattern.
And, yes, I do agree with the later part about "relative perfection". I
think I have reinstated that point with the examples above.
Take care,
- Pi
http://pirsig.ath.cx
On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, August West wrote:
> Pi;
>
> I think Nic may mean "perfect" in the sense that
> trees are always trees; that an object is an object;
> that a is a, is always perfect. This is a definition
> of "perfect" that is absoulte. Writing a perfect essay
> would however, be relative; as you indicated. It is
> however, not impossiable to be "realtively perfect".
> i.e. an essay that accomplishes all its goals would be
> "relatively perfect".
>
> -August
> --- Pi <pi@mideel.ath.cx> wrote:
> >
> > Another thing I would like to point out is that
> > there no `absolute
> > perfection'. When you say "...the perfection in any
> > essay...", you seem to
> > be referring to some absolute definition of
> > perfection. As I understand
> > it, the definition of perfection is very relative to
> > our own static
> > patterns of quality. For example, I believe that
> > Pirsig's ZMM is an
> > excellent book, but obviously everyone who has read
> > the book does not
> > share this opinion.
> >
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 04:27:09 BST