From: nic nott (gnicgnostic@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 19:03:11 BST
Pi <pi@mideel.ath.cx> wrote:
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
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.
> >
Hi Pi and August
Two things I would like to clear up . Firstly perfection or lack of it is not a description of good or bad .Things can be perfectly good or perfectly bad . Something is perfect when it exactly matches its own definition . Secondly we do not "know" that "DQ is the leading edge of experience" , it's a theory that has been postulated and we are discussing.
When I talk about a tree or an essay being perfect , I was not talking about them in comparison to other trees or essays ie relative , but about particular trees and essays .For example , I am the perfect me , I perfectly fit the definition of me . Likewise any particular tree is perfectly itself . Therefore I am not talking about relative perfection which is an oxymoron and I disagree that perfection is " relative to our own static patternsof quality " .A blind person may not be able to see a perfect sphere but that does not mean that the concept can't exist . Good and bad are relative , perfection is not . You may say that " my perfect day " is a relative statement ie compared to your perfect day , but that would be to ignore the " my ". " Nic's perfect day " is always " Nic's perfect day " whorver you are .
The purpose of the discussion ,as I see it , is to remove the static intellectual filters , which are the things that prevent us seeing/being perfection
Nic
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
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 - 19:03:43 BST