I don't think that ZMM is such an important book (so with the case of Lila) -- I just don't think Pirsig is the center of "his philosophy" of Quality. Whitehead is a brilliant philosopher who makes a much better attempt at writing philosophy than Pirsig.
Initially, I didn't think of Quality or Value as in the sense of goodness or virtue -- I simply thought of it within the "scientific" framework (where it means characteristic), since characteristics are the "groundstuff" of the "world". When Pirsig talks about Quality, I interpret it Quality as preference. Organic molecules "chose" to evolve over millions of years to form animals. When I accept this fact, the famous "why did this happen?" question comes up which ultimately opens up the question of the purpose of the universe. Quality, I think, is just a sort of replacement for the word purpose, because why would something happen if it didn't have purpose; or in a more Pirsigian way, "it happened because it was Better". So, the Metaphysics of Quality to me is nothing greater than the four-fold classification of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual patterns with a mix of dynamic- and static- ness that maintains Order. This is parallel to the yin-yang principle. (Note how dynamicness is only a characteristic of a particular type of pattern) Pirsig would probably laugh this off, but maybe I need time to evolve to the truth of the MoQ (if it has truth at all); until then, that is my belief. On another note, I don't fully accept the "metaphysics" part of the MoQ, because I don't see it as "The Philosophy", it's only a good intellectual tool. I'd say GEB is a far, far better book -- I'd rate it as the best book since 1950. -- Akshay On 5/31/07, David M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ron > > I meant ZMM of course. But if you fancy a change try Bishop Berkeley > or Whitehead's Process & Reality for explanation of why the subject > object language is optional and questionable. > > DM > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ron Kulp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 8:08 PM > Subject: Re: [MD] Perception,evolution and the spirit > > > > > > > > Ron said: > >> Subject/object perception can not be "dropped" like a unstylish hand > >> bag. > >> Anyone who thinks they do not percieve in terms of subjects and > >> objects is fooling themselves. > > > > > > I know a good book you should read. > > > > DM > > > > > > [Ron] > > Do tell, I could use a good read. Thanks! > > > > > > > > moq_discuss mailing list > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > Archives: > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > > > moq_discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
