gav, dmb, most all, hey dave, > you is spot on bruv.
Remains to be seen (for me, John) bob's work, the moq, is an elegant creation. i use it reflexively, > automatically - it is a part of my analytic being now. it fits with all the > other concepts that i have found useful. True for me as well. I would like to drag the discussion around to a topic that I find central and that I find myself in (perhaps)conflict with David. And since it doesn't have anything to do with reductionism, I ought to change the thread-header, but I'm not sure how to appropriately do that. I touched on it briefly, asking a question before Dave went camping and getting one answer from him, but an opposite answer from Platt. The question is concerning Quality and the "value" of Quality - is Quality a neutral term for valuation itself (empiricism) or is it a positive term for positive value (the GOOD)? (From about two weeks ago- cooking ape thread) --------- dmb says:Quality has a negative side. Remember the hot stove example, where the low quality of the situation gets you off the stove even before you can conceptualize the situation in terms of hot stoves and your burning ass. In that case, the Quality serves the good insofar as it gets you out of a bad situation but the immediately felt Quality is decidedly unpleasant. It's probably gonna leave a mark. And then where is your career as an ass model gonna be? --------- >From there, the question never quite got cleared up. I know part of the problem is the ambiguity in the term "quality" (which Pirsig wondered over but didn't explicitly address in ZAMM) which is why I did try and get it straight, but probably due to my own communication shortcomings, trying to be witty instead of plain and straightforward, didn't get any sort of straight answer. Except from Platt - the Fred Flintstone of Burt Reynolds fame. And since everyone always disagrees with Platt, I was wondering if mr good hands David could go ahead and clarify for me his view so I'd know how to think about this. In summation: Is the "undifferentiated aesthetic continuum" the source of everything, or is the source of everything a DIFFERENTIATED aesthetic continuum? Differentiated or Undifferentiated? I say, differentiated. Otherwise entropy and chaos would be the rule and we wouldn't be. Pirsig makes it pretty plain which way he leans on the question. But I don't even take HIS word for everything. I want consensus here. Give it to me now. Analogies with chewing gum and hot stoves, not needed. John the pushy Idealist 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/
