Hey Mark, Any difference between "constant" and "absolute?" I think they're the same concept.
Regards, Platt On 7 Feb 2010 at 20:46, markhsmit wrote: > 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/
