On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:20 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > John said to dmb:Quality could be good, it could be bad. Quality is > basically value-free. > interesting... > > dmb says:If I may expose the flawed logic by way of analogy... > Chewing gum could be fruity, it could be spearmint. Chewing gum is > basically flavor-free. > See what I did there? I'll bet you do. If I may expose flawed analogy by way of logic... Pirsig himself referred to the ambiguity in the word "quality", but I prefaced this whole thread by specifying exactly the connotation of choice for my point - when I say my tool has real quality, I'm saying it's good. I'm not saying it has a waffle head or is made of titanium - although it may have any of those qualities - what I'm saying is a quality tool = a good tool. So much for my tool. Now about that everything else... If the metaphysical basis for everything is good, that is one thing. If it just has different flavors for different folks and la-de-da whatever turns you on its all the same... well that's just a completely different stick of gum entirely. So Platt says that what Pirsig meant by Quality is Good and you say what Pirsig meant was different flavors. I'd say go argue with Platt but nobody seems to like doing that and anyway, gav and Ian discourage excessive argumentation so I don't want you to do something bad. You might be wrong Professor B, but you ain't bad. 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/
