Whoa Ham, and DMB / Matt, Ham you said this - quoting DMB and I - which could be misleading.
"He [DMB] also says that its author "hesitates to construct a metaphysics ... because of what Quality is," not, as Ian had suggested, simply "an accident of history." I wonder if this is true. If it is, I think we've all been deceived." I didn't say quality or the MoQ construct was an accident of history, I said the metaphysical tag was, but DMB's take is OK with me, but a "mistake" nevertheless. - something Pirsig did deliberately for all the right reasons, but that doesn't mean it was right. The mistake is to expend effort justifying it as a metaphysics. The word quality was an accident of course, a chance remark by Sarah, but the concept it became attached to is clearly no accident - pretty fundamental, primary, even if not metaphysical - but as Matt says the latter debate is not very important. Ian Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
