Hi dmb, > I didn't bother reading the Wiki stuff and deleted it in my response. I am not clear where Pirsig ends and you start, there are no quotation marks except at the begining. When the passage below in the second sentence says "he", are you referring to Pirsig? When you state that "man is the measure of all things", do you mean those things that are important to man, or really all things? When either you or Pirsig say that man is a participant in creation, who is he participating with? From the sentence before it would appear that he is participating with his experience. Is this what you mean? If so, please explain. Is Quality absolute, but we are participating with it? That would make it dualist wouldn't it?
In the second paragraph you state "he" again. Are you talking about Pirsig? What is he doing right all along? And Dharma? I got this definition of Dharma from a site devoted to hinduism. "The entire creation is held together and sustained by the All-powerful Law of God. Practice of Dharma, therefore means recognition of this Law and abidance by it. Is this what you mean by Dharma? If not, please explain. It is nice to use quotes, but what do they mean to you? This is a forum for discussing Quality, not providing quotes. Quotes are contextual and cannot be used as any kind of proof. But, they can certainly be misused. Please add some intelligence. This seems more like throwing a Bible at someone. See? Mark > > Pirsig says: > "Man is the measure of all things." Yes, that's what he is saying about > Quality. Man is not the source of all things, as the subjective idealists > would say. Nor is he the passive observer of all things, as the objective > idealists and materialists would say. The Quality which creates the world > emerges as a relationship between man and his experience. He is a > participant in the creation of all things. > The one thing that doesn't fit what he says and what Plato said about the > Sophists is their profession of teaching virtue. All accounts indicate this > was absolutely central to their teaching, but how are you going to teach > virtue if you teach the relativity of all ethical ideas? Virtue if it > implies anything at all, implies an ethical absolute. . . . > Quality! Virtue! Dharma! That is what the Sophists were teaching! Not > ethical relativism. Not pristine virtue. But aretê. Excellence. Dharma! > Before the Church of Reason. Before substance. Before form. Before mind and > matter. Before dialectic itself. Quality had been absolute. Those first > teachers of the Western world were teaching Quality, and the medium they had > chosen was that of rhetoric. He has been doing it right all along. . . . > > > dmb says: > See? > > > > > > > > > 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 > 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
