Greetings, DAN: "Hi Struan By using foundational value-situations, Pirsig effectively eliminates any reference to 'good' or 'bad', 'positive' or 'negative' situations and instead seems to institute scales of value, from low to high. Instead of saying "sitting on a hot stove is bad" Pirsig states it to be low-value, which does not necessarily equate with 'bad' or 'negative' unless taken as subjective." Hi Dan. I confess that I'm not sure what your point is in the context of my comments, but I have to say that your claim that Pirsig, " eliminates any reference to 'good' or 'bad', 'positive' or 'negative' situations," is wrong from the quotation on the cover page of ZAMM, "And what is good Phaedrus, And what is not good - Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?" right through both his works to the last paragraph of Lila, "Good is a noun." The whole point of the exercise is surely to throw some light on where morality (good and bad) comes from and what it is, hence 'an enquiry into morals.' I can't see any way that Pirsig could have made it more plain than starting with it, finishing with it and subtitling his second book with it - or am I missing something? Hi Struan Being "an inquiry into morals," Pirsig's second book deals with morality as value, not morality as 'good' and 'bad'. Clearly this is Pirsig's message. I am not sure why this is unclear to you or why you do not see relevant context between my comments and your passage I cited. If something is not good, is it bad? Does it then have negative value? I submit this is not what Pirsig wrote about in either of his books. Rather he proposes reality as Good, or as Bucky Fuller wrote... both good and bad are essential to 100% regenerative universe and both are "good." Dan MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
