Hi Magnus, Stop putting words into my mouth, that is just annoying. If you read what I said rather than what you think I said it would be an improvement. What do you think I mean by constant? That it doesn't evolve? Perhaps you should read Pirsig, because Quality does. And what are your silly analogies? If you use the Titanic as an example of Quality then you really have not got it, get it? What does the Sound of Music have to do with Quality? If you believe that these are examples, please reread Pirsig.
Pirsig's books state (yes, STATE) that Quality is a guiding principle. If that is not a claim to a constant then I do not know what is. Please do not retort with sophomoric analogies. Go have your really good tasting pie, and call it Quality. There really is more to the philosophy of Quality than that. Think about it. What is not constant in the claim for an underlying reality that is called Quality? Remember, I am not talking about a fad. Cheers, Mark Ham > Ham is referring to Pirsig's postulate that Quality equals Reality. This > is inconsistent with his pronouncement that "experience is the cutting > edge of reality." If Quality is fixed as a constant of the universe, it > canot be modified or actualized by experience, for experience is > relative to the subject 'I'. In short, experience serves no purpose in > Pirsig's cosmology. As always, you manage to jam so many wrongs into a paragraph that it's almost amusing, wasn't it for the fact that some new people might read it and think it's right. Quality is not fixed. Have you ever read in ZMM or Lila that it's *fixed* or constant? Oh right, you haven't read any of them, silly me. If Quality was fixed, the blockbuster Titanic would still be running each year, and everyone would be amazed at how great a movie it is and cry their way through. No other films would ever be made, because the best movie has already been made. Or perhaps they'd still be running "Sound of music", because nobody ever bothered to try to top that one. So, can we agree that Quality is *not* constant? In your world, perhaps experience is relative the subject, but in ZMM, one of the most basic and fundamental lessons learned by Phaedrus is the fact that experience is *NOT* subordinated the subject. It's the other way around. I know you don't agree with that, but if you weren't as arrogant as you obviously are, you might at least have the decency to at least try to get the most basic things about the MoQ right. Magnus 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/ 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/
