--On Wednesday, November 08, 2000 4:14 PM -0500 Richard Budd
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:rr
> Hey Leland,
>
> You Wrote:
> " It seems to me that the biggest problem in "proving" that Quality =
> Reality
>> is one of perspective. In order to see what Reality really is, one has to
>> step away and look at Reality in toto.
>> This, however, is exceedingly difficult to do.
>> We can only infer what Reality really is, and whether Quality bears a
> close
>> enough resemblance to be a possible explanation."
>
> Your point is well taken and absolutely correct of course... however,
> let's not mistake a call for EVIDENCE that Quality=Reality with a call
> for PROOF that Quality=Reality. There is huge difference. As you say,
> "We can only infer what Reality really is...." and we cannot make such an
> inference without evidence.
>
>
If we begin the task of compiling evidence of Quality=Reality, I think we
must begin with the concession that there are certain "undefinables" about
objects and people that lead us to judgements about one being better than
the other. As in Pirsig's Rhetoric class in ZMM. The students could
generally agree upon which paper was better(had more, or perhaps simply
more pristine Quality). But what made them this way? We could nitpick and
go into structure and grammar, but we all know we would be deluding
ourselves by doing this. We need not define these undefinables in order to
accept their reality as reality:
"The Quality that can be talked about is not the real Quality."
-ZMM
-Seth
>
>
>
>
>
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
