[David]: > I propose a new subject line: Quality a definition.
[Andre]: > Hi David, by all means start a new subject line > but please do not define Quality! or even look for > one...there isn't any. > > Even Pirsig has already gone too far by suggesting > the term Quality for what he is referring to...and he > has been very clear about this. Ham: Okay, I'll throw out a curve ball to get David's proposed new thread started ... With all due respect to Pirsig, he has presented us with a conundrum. He suggests a term for the fundamental metaphysical reality that, by his own admission, cannot -- indeed, MUST not -- be defined, although it is existentially understood to be man's sense of the relative value, significance or worth of an experience. Any batters on the MD team willing to take a swing at that? Hello Marsha, Ham and Andre, The second time I read Lila and reached page 117, the song metaphor used to explain the difference between DQ and SQ, seemed familiar. Below please find Hume's distinction between IDEAS and IMPRESSIONS. It starts at the very first page of the Treatise and is worth following for a few more paragraphs than are quoted. All the perceptions of the human mind resolve themselves into two distinct kinds, which I shall call IMPRESSIONS and IDEAS. The difference betwixt these consists in the degrees of force and liveliness with which they strike upon the mind, and make their way into our thought or consciousness. Those perceptions, which enter with most force and violence, we may name IMPRESSSIONS; and under this name I comprehend all our sensations, passions and emotions, as they make their first appearance in the soul. By IDEAS I mean the faint images of these in thinking and reasoning; such as, for instance, are all the perceptions excited by the present discourse, exception only, those which arise from the sight and touch, and excepting the immediate pleasure or uneasiness it may occasion. (Hume, 1739) I found the resemblance between impressions and DQ and ideas and SQ striking. Also both Jose Ortega (a metaphysics of vital reason) and Martin Heidegger point out that we are not conscious of our actions but can only reflect on them after the fact. This is why you jump from the hot stove before wondering why. While this seems true in the main, we seem to be immediately aware of experiences of DQ. Why are we immediately aware of DQ, the heat, but can only reflect on SQ, jumping off? I don't want to confuse the issue by tearing off in three or four directions at the same time but is anyone satisfied with, "By even using the term "Quality" he had already violated the nothingness of mystic reality." (Lila 107) I have a lot of trouble with, I know because I know and you can't ask any questions because the answers precede language. Then why are we talking and what is philosophy? We are all capable of experiencing DQ and SQ without the use of drugs or religious ritual. Why can't we talk about our experience of Quality while retaining respect for it as an important concept in our experience and our metaphysics? Someone, I forget who, said, There are really only two questions in all of philosophy, what is reality and how does the mind know it. It seems to me now that the two answers may be connected. -david swift 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/
