Ashkay said: "Of course, in Pirsig's scheme, the ordinary person liking Dan Brown is a lower form of evolution than a critic recommending War and Peace."
Does Pirsig think War and Peace has more Quality than Dan Brown (or his novels, I should say)? Does this Quality exist in the actual books themselves? Sometimes there are likable things, with higher Quality, that are sociably acceptable to like, e.g. snow. And, sometimes, these things are of higher Quality than other things that are intellectual, i.e. War and Peace, but especially things like 1984, Lord of the Flies, or Brave New World (stupid books which are esteemed as Quality by intellectuals). Oftentimes, there exists higher Quality in much simpler things (again, e.g. snow/rain), and I have found intellectual (although "intellectual" is a stupid word in that it assumes intellectual is the highest type of Quality) in much simpler things, many of them sociably acceptable things to like. It often does not matter in the specific objects people find Quality; in essence, the higher Quality is found between the relationship of them and the object. Is this what Pirsig was getting at? I wrote this (relatively) unaware of his views. Maybe I was understanding his definition of experience in the wrong way. This also possibly corresponds with what David M (I think it was him) said about the Russian doll analogy of Quality. On Dec 1, 2007 5:22 AM, MarshaV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 'Agents' of course would be evaluating patterns of value. > > > Marsha > > > > > At 06:35 AM 12/1/2007, you wrote: > >At 02:04 AM 12/1/2007, you wrote: > > >At 04:16 PM 11/30/2007, you wrote: > > > >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?" > > > > > >Since I'm avoiding the unknown in painting, I thought it would be > > >valuable to play with your question. > > > > > >If we value certain values more because we value more value in them, > > >i.e., because our values help us relate to these values, then why do > > >people who evaluate art value between what's "value" and what they > "value?" > > > > > >Have I paraphrased your question correctly? > > > > > >Marsha > > > >Greetings redsky in the morning, > > > >I really feel compelled to tighten further my paraphrase of your > question: > >--- > >If we value certain values more because we value more value in them, > >i.e., because our values help us value these values, then why do > >people who evaluate art value between what's "value" and what they > "value?" > >--- > > > >I bet I could tighten further by transforming the word 'people' and > >the pronouns into 'valuing agents'. I might also ask why you asked > >the question? What is there other than value? > > > >Marsha > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >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/ > > 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/ > -- "The only thing that separates us from the animals is...well, the truth is nothing separates us from the animals." 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/
