Hello everyone
Platt Holden wrote:
>
> 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.
Hi Platt
Yes you are making much sense, and yes I also realize Pirsig may have
fudged things a bit in SODV to accommodate his audience. Obviously some
things are better than others yet that "betterness" isn't in the things.
Thank you too.
Dan
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
