From: Ray Cox (baroquenviolin@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Sep 02 2003 - 17:57:16 BST
August wrote: "If I percieve something this implies
"me" and "something"; a subject and an object. The
whole time we are looking for quality we are looking
for something whether its a feeling or something
physical.
"Quality isn't and cannot be nothing, it has quanity.
In existance you are something or you are nothing.
Pirsig, I think was right when he said quality is
undefineable."
I was under the impression that Quality was neither
subject or object because Quality is an undefineable
driving force transcending both subjects and objects.
This was a central idea to ZAMM. In Lila, it's
categorized differently, but Quality (now called
Dynamic Quality) is still that same force; it is not
subject and not object, but an ever-occuring event
that transcends both subjects and objects which are
labeled as static patterns of value. Quality cannot
have quantity in terms of subjects and objects -
Quality is pure experience.
Perhaps the problem you see in the MoQ is the same one
that Pirsig acknowledged in his writing; that Quality
cannot be truly pinned down into a metaphysics without
undermining the central idea that Quality is
undefineable. The issue at hand is that while the MoQ
is the more accurate concept of reality than its S/O
alternative, the MoQ could only be explained in words
and terms that are based on a S/O perception of
reality.
Sincerely,
Raymond
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
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 : Tue Sep 02 2003 - 17:57:49 BST