Greetings J-A
The only useful thing in ZAMM was the dichotomy between romantic and classic
> social pattern which help us understand that people ARE different.
>
>
Hey! It's my favorite term - only. And I use "favorite" quite
sarcastically. But I must say you have quite a pair of what we Californians
call "cojones" to use "only" quite so vociferously as this.
> All of the rest of ZAMM and LILA is really about how RMP FAILED in his
> struggle to DEFINE Quality as a concept. What he found was some clues in the
> direction of the main question but he did not come through.
>
splutter. gasp. howl.
There. Is that the reaction you wanted? Because you certainly beg that
response with such polemic. I'd say the tale succeeds even if its only a
tale of man's failure to define Quality.
But it has always,
and is today,
and becomes all the time...
quite a bit more.
> Some threads remind me of RMP's breaking down in the end because he
> couldn't both work for his living and solve this problem at the same time,
> an endless spiral of words words words. But Quality is not just words, it's
> a balancing force! A state of harmony! A perfect event! Emotions of
> unbalance, unharmony or unperfectness are symptomatic for what should be
> eventually desired.
>
Ah, so this is why you call RMP a failure. You can do it better! You've
got Quality all defined in terms of quantity and other such reductionisms
and so... consider yourself fit to judge such things as unbalance, unharmony
and unperfection.
I'll consider your assertion if you can prove it. And I see below, that you
make a very game try. Good for you Jan-Anders. I'll not take your taking on
Pirsig in a truly mean-spirited way, but as the necessary dialectical
opposition that good philosophy requires... in a similar spirit then...
>
> If you consider the last chapter of LILA, he points at the connection
> between arete and rta. But this is going backwards in our philosophic
> history.
how?
> A definition of Quality will be used as a tool to understand our reality
> and all and perhaps overcome some global misunderstandings between western
> and eastern thinking. Big words isn't it?
>
>
big words indeed.
> A correct and ultimate definition of the premises behind quality must also
> be the premises, conditions that verify the premises themselve.
why? How many mirrors do you need anyway?
> What's behind itself, behind the conditions and premises that first verify
> its own existence. Like a "Cogito ergo sum" for the conditions that
> separates the possible from the impossible. Call it desire but this "desire"
> is very violent and impossible to come around. Very very strong force.
> Descartes compared his thinking to his own thinking. Compare any object to
> any other object, knock on wood or put another table upon Kants table. The
> birth of a child is an inevitable proof that a man and a women did something
> very strange about 9 months earlier. This verifies the existence of the
> reality 'a priori' of one or more possible real things that we have to deal
> with.
By the possibilites there are a lot of different solutions and that's the
> patterns. Not just four levels, there are more...
>
> An eternal number of differences and possibilities, the quality of dynamic
> freedom....
>
> I think it's just impossible to understand why, but feeling the balance
> between real quantity, static pattern and dynamic freedom isn't too bad.
>
> "Oh Lord have mercy on the people in England
> for the terrible food this people must eat."
>
> Life is great
>
whew. speaking of words words words... big words indeed. What a panoply!
But somewhat lacking in the "making a coherent point" department.
Bob can rest easy.
>
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/
