Adrie,
That's bulls eyes...
"Any philosophic explanation of Quality is going to be both false and true
precisely because it is a philosophic explanation. The process of philosophic
explanation is an analytic process, a process of breaking something down
into subjects and predicates. What I mean (and everybody else means) by
the word quality cannot be broken down into subjects and predicates. This
is not because Quality is so mysterious but because Quality is so simple,
immediate and direct."
(ZMM, Chapter 20)
“…if Quality or excellence is seen as the ultimate reality then it becomes
possible
for more than one set of truths to exist. Then one doesn't seek the absolute
Truth.'
One seeks instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of things with
the
knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future this explanation must be
taken
provisionally; as useful until something better comes along. One can then
examine
intellectual realities the same way one examines paintings in an art gallery,
not with
an effort to find out which one is the 'real' painting, but simply to enjoy and
keep
those that are of value. There are many sets of intellectual reality in
existence and
we can perceive some to have more quality than others, but that we do so is, in
part,
the result of our history and current patterns of values.
(LILA, Chapter 8)
Enjoy and keep those that are of value? That sounds about right. And that
would be relative to one's "history and current patterns of value," not
anyone's
authority.
Marsha
On Nov 13, 2010, at 5:44 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote:
> Bull's eye , Arlo.
> i agree on all counts.
>
> 2010/11/13 ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[email protected]>
>
>> [DMB]
>> It's not honest to pick the one [as in quote] that suits you and ignore the
>> rest.
>>
>> [Mark]
>> Oh really dmb? Is this coming from someone who uses a freely open
>> encyclopedia
>> to provide examples of truth?
>>
>> [Arlo]
>> You would prefer he use a closed encyclopedia? Which one? Do you have a
>> better
>> site for providing a common frame of meaning?
>>
>> For the record, and this is merely restating Pirsig's own words, DMB has
>> probably the most coherent understanding of Pirsig on the list, along with
>> Ant,
>> Dan and Horse. I may disagree with DMB on a few points, but when I do I
>> don't
>> fault him for being consistent with Pirsig's writings.
>>
>> Since you are here, I gather, due to an interest in Pirsig, can you tell me
>> where you think DMB is wrong about Pirsig? Or are you arguing with DMB to,
>> in
>> effect, argue with Pirsig?
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> parser
> 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
