Pirsig only concludes that Quality is basically existence after he's convinced himself that it exists. If Quality does not exist, the rest of his theory is invalid. It's like saying God is equivalent to existence; therefore, God exists. To clarify my point: if we like certain things more because we recognize more Quality in them, i.e., because our experiences help us relate to these objects, then why do art connoisseurs differentiate between what's "good" and what they "like?" For example, a critic might concede that, when it's all said and done, "War and Peace" is the superior text, but what the heck, he likes that mainstream Dan Brown book more. If he doesn't personally find "Quality" in "War and Peace," he should dismiss it outright, but he doesn't. He finds something in there that he doesn't relate to, so it's not a favorite, but he appreciates its "value." On the other hand, a casual reader might say, "War and Peace" bores me, so I don't like it. It's not good." How do you reconcile this? Is the critic's opinion more valid simply because he knows more about literature? But say there is no such thing as Quality (we're leaving the question of existence and reality aside for the time being). The critic and casual reader will still appreciate their favored texts for the same reasons, namely, that they like the texts. They can identify with the books. However, the critic admires the historical importance of the Tolstoy book. He can point out the precise form it's written in and he can analyze the manner in which the author utilizes his language. He will then conclude that, based on these (arbitrary) literary criteria, that it is, in fact, the superior tome. This has nothing to do with any objective "quality," only the objective criteria set down by the literary world. In the latter scenario, Quality cannot be removed from the world because it's simply not there. It sounds like trivia, but it seems that what Pirsig's attempting to do on page 193 of ZMM. "If you can't distinguish between good and bad in the arts they disappear." That's not any intrinsic "quality" he's subtracting from the world, but rather man's capability to decide what he likes and what he does not like, or what he appreciates versus what he doesn't. >This isn't a valid question at all; this is realised as soon as you analyse >the question. Quality is simply another name for Existence, because you >start all of philosophic inquiry with one assumption, that of Existence. >herefore, it is like asking "does existence exist?".
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products. (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) 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/
