The absolute, depends on what you mean by the term.
In its Latin origin absolūtus which means "loosened from" or "unattached."
Implies a seperation. But let us by-pass this for the moment because
the arguement between the one and the many, unity and plurality,
rationalism and empiricism suggests either one or the other is correct.
James stated that the totality of the two is what is sought.
Nagarjuna would agree
"Nagarjuna defended the classical Buddhist emphasis on phenomena.
For him shunyata is explicitly used as a middle way between
absolutism and nihilism, and that is where its soteriological
power lies. It does not refer to an ultimate, universal, or
absolute nature of reality. Holding up emptiness as an
absolute or ultimate truth without reference to that which
is empty is the last thing either the Buddha or Nagarjuna
would advocate. "
-wiki
I believe Pirsig would agree with W. James and Nagarjuna.
Go ahead. Make a case for the Absolute. I dare you. I double dare you.
>
>
What do you think Pirsig's Quality is David, if not an indefinable Absolute?
And he already made a better case for it than I can.
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/md/archives.html
