[Andre]
I also hope that those posters on this discuss who keep on getting
confused (and in some cases reject the notion of Quality because
Pirsig has suggested it is 'Good') may appreciate this more
'expanded' perspective.
[Arlo]
Quick note, I don't think Quality is "good" in any human,
anthropomorphic sense. I think Quality is more like "valuation", it
is the impetus or stimuli that leads to value decisions like "good"
or "bad". Or, better as I've been saying, Quality = experience. No,
not all experience is "good" for all patterns, and this is where the
idea of the levels illuminates the conflicts between patterns making
different valuations (the germ versus the human body). The germ does
not act "bad", the germ just does its own thing, pursuing betterness.
It is "bad" looking down from a higher level and seeing how that
germs pursuit of Quality is in conflict with another patterns pursuit
of Quality, the human body.
I guess this is my point, there is a world of difference between
saying "a germ is bad" and "from our vantage, it is bad for a germ's
pursuit of Quality to impede a human's pursuit of Quality". Or maybe
I'm just splitting hairs no one else sees as troublesome.
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
