Hi Dan and All:
Your wrote:
> Concepts of "betterness" arise Dynamically with our interaction in the
> environment we inhabit but we come to equate "betterness" with things;
> this thing is better than that thing. The MOQ states Quality does not
> reside in things, however. "Quality is an event."
Pirsig wrote in "Subjects, Objects, Data and Values (SODV):
"But some things are better than others, that is, they have more
quality."
Also:
"Obviously some things are better than others."
I agree that Quality doesn't "reside" within a thing. Rather a thing is
a pattern of Quality--Quality being a separate category from things
like subjects and objects. In this sense, "It isn't Lila that has
quality; its Quality that has Lila. Nothing can have Quality." (Lila,
Chap. 11.)
The word "have" causes problems. In MOQ terms, it would be
wrong to say a certain dog has Quality but ok to say, "That's a high
Quality dog," as John Wooden Leg says in the last chapter of Lila.
Our SOM habit is to attach Quality to our names of things rather
than see Quality as the thing itself, i.e. a pattern of static Quality.
Am I making sense? Are in basic agreement? Thanks.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
