[Redsky] But you're still only removing the distinctions between the wall and the picture, and not any inherent "quality." Is it well built/Does it have good foundation? Well, that's purely subjective. We "know" what Quality is? Someone out there prefers the blank wall. Someone prefers PIL to Beethoven. Is there a definitive answer to someone who's wondering if PIL or Beethoven has more Quality? You can remove the notes, making them sound the same to the observers, but would that be Quality? Pirsig's response, I think, would be to say that the intellectual level of Quality (Beethoven), is higher than the social level (PIL). This ignores the fact that there are some people who, when acting on a purely intellectual level, prefer PIL over Beethoven. On Nov 30, 2007 2:26 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Redsky, welcome to the discussion (bedlam) > > 29 Nov. you wrote: > > > In ZMM, Pirsig uses realism to "prove" that Quality exists. > > Regardless or not if you subscribe to that theory, the line of logic > > he uses seems somewhat questionable. In claiming to remove "Quality" > > from the world, he isn't removing Quality per se, but rather removing > > differences between objects. By removing the distinction between > > fine art and a blank wall, he isn't removing a definitive aesthetic > > judgment, but rather our ability to perceive a difference between two > > scenarios. > > I guess this is the actual passage > > His answer was an old one belonging to a philosophic > school that called itself realism.``A thing exists,'' he said, > ``if a world without it can't function normally. If we can > show that a world without Quality functions abnormally, > then we have shown that Quality exists, whether it's > defined or not.'' He thereupon proceeded to subtract > Quality from a description of the world as we know it. The > first casualty from such a subtraction, he said, would be > the fine arts. If you can't distinguish between good and > bad in the arts they disappear. ... and so on > > > This is ZAMM and fairly early while the Quality debate was a > game Pirsig played with his teacher colleagues. Later - in LILA > after the Reality=Quality postulate - such demonstrations became > superfluous and useless. If quality is removed there is no > existence at all, full stop!. But the (Q=R) is a postulate (taken for > granted by the 'postulant', but dubious to his contemporaries) the > first ever step into a new metaphysics. > > IMO Pirsig ought not have bothered with it any more, it can't be > proved, the proof is in the pudding (the MOQ) If it produces a > more coherent world than SOM it's proven fact (and THAT is > does) but Pirsig could not quite let this be and in a letter to > someone - ?? - he used money and the stock marked as proof of > Quality's prominence. Still IMO this is the MOQ from SOM's > premises (where value is a "unassimilated" term) and this will > never jell. > > Bo > > > > > 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/
