Hi dmb,
> dmb says: > Did I ever tell you about the time I went to Liverpool and delivered a > paper called "Fun With Blasphemy"? Pirsig seemed to like it quite a bit. > It's still up on Ant's website, if you're interested. And yea, I kinda am a > disciple, although one that thinks blasphemy is fun. > >> > >> [Mark] > Yes, I have read your essay. I thought it was quite good. I realize that > you understand what Pirsig is saying as it has developed since Lila. It is > possible that the quotes you use mean something different to me. I am no > expert on Lila since I have not had the additional conversation that > imparted meaning to you. I have many of my own interpretations of the > paragraphs in ZMM. As such, I need a little more explanation from the > modern version of interpretation. The use of rhetoric relates to common > understanding of subject. Often words are used to provide additional > understanding beyond what the words actually say. > > There was a long time between ZMM and Lila. During that time the concept > of Quality did not stand still. I had numerous discussions with others and > it was discussed in philosophy classes. Perhaps I bring a more historical > approach which does not coincide necessarily with what is presented in Lila. > The concept had already grown before Lila, and cannot be suddenly changed > because of a single book on the subject. This is not to say that a > metaphysics had been built during that time, it was more of a shared > awareness in everyday life. The whole notion of strict levels was foreign > to my understanding. I hope you appreciate my difficulty. > > The case in point, was the quote you provided by Pirsig. I think the > questions I provided were appropriate for discussion, such as the notion of > participating in the creation. To further examine such theories requires an > explanation of the personal interpretation. Perhaps this is self evident to > you, but not to me. If we always resort to the explanation that it cannot > be explained, then the metaphysics falls short, in my opinion. If we have a > strict interpretation of Quality it also has difficulties. This is where > fuzzy analogies come in. > > Regards, > Mark > > > >> >> >> >> 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
