Greetings group, I'm new at discussions on Persig, but I've re-read Zen at least five times and Lila twice. I hope that makes me qualified to comment.
My interpretation of this discussion on the senses and quality is that when Persig illustrates a similarity between the five senses and the ability to discern quality, his intent was to establish that quality exists before, with and after all of our senses. For instance, your eyes turn from the sun, your ears shriek at a loud sound, and your hand moves from the stove when it feels heat, your nose doesn't like a skunk, and your mouth will spit out bitter food. In contrast, a flower is easy to look at, soft green grass feels good to your feet, Beethoven's music makes your ears smile, Apple Pie makes your nose open just before you gobble a large bite of it. Any description I can fathom of our use of the five senses seems to me to be an immediate quality response. The senses seem to be a sort of "quality radar" for all things that we don't "think" about. So, I'm not sure that he does or does not adequately support his notion, but to me the notion was accurate without being stated. By their nature the senses are quality yes/no determiners. In short, I agree with the last line of Wim's email. It's merely an analytical tool for describing how these five senses are working: through them we only experience what has value. Jay Casler MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/ MF Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
