Hi Mark, 3WD and Group:
Mark wrote:
> But the "Quality=Value=Morality" that I'm referring to is the same as Pirsig when he
>states:
>
> "Of course, the ultimate Quality isn�t a noun or an adjective or anything else
>definable...."
>
> right at the end of the book. What you refer to in the above passages are the
>results of the division of the _primary_ Quality into _secondary_ Dynamic and Static
>quality. As with Good these have a very close relationship and emanate from primary
>Quality but are not IDENTICAL with primary
Quality as are Value and Morality. I know that the difference is subtle, which may be
why it has been missed before, but it is certainly there.
You may be right, of course, but the difference is too subtle for me.
What's more, since ultimate Quality isn't "anything else definable,"
I don't see how you can logically say that Value and Morality are
identical with primary Quality. Don't the words "value" and
"morality" define Quality as much as "good" or "direct experience"
does? To say something can't be defined is to preclude the use of
ANY words whether nouns, adjectives, synonyms or anything else.
So has Pirsig contradicted himself? Seems so to me. But
perhaps strict logic has to be violated to write a book about
something which in essence can't be written about. It wouldn't be
the first time we ran into a paradox in our metaphysical
discussions, and why 3WD is probably on to something when he
describes Pirsig's books as partly works of art.
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
