Horse,
I agree with that quote and do not find it at all inconsistent with
the quote of the art gallery or what I wrote to you.
i put that quote from cruising blues because i didn't like people throwing
it around like they had some special grasp looking down upon others who were
lost in the dark.
Maybe you forgot but I was arguing that liking was a guide to
quality. I think our likes become more finely tuned but
entirely agree that
"Reality, which is value, is understood by every infant."
I would think that your post is too postmodern, whatever goes,
kumbayaish whatever put-down catch phrase of the day is for Platt.
This along with the art quote I put in and the one Andre put in about
"liking" will be ignored as one of Pirsig's subjective periods--thank
god he is back in reality (ha ha).
So I am not exactly sure of why you put that quote--where do you
find it inconsistent with what I have been arguing?
erin
>> Erin: No this is not a problem. But the problem I have
>> had lately with where this thread has been going is
>> that reality is thrown around like it is a well known
>> given.
>>
>> Here is a quote from crusing blues but I think it
>> applies here for some particular members i won't bother to mention.
>> "Scientists and philosophers spend their entire working lives puzzling over
>> the nature of reality, but now the depressed ones use the term freely, as
>> though everyone should know and agree with what they mean by it."
>
>There is a difference between what science and (some) philosophy means by
reality and
>what we experience, but Pirsig doesn't seem to feel there is that much of a
problem
>either judging from the below:
>
>
>"Almost as great as this "value" platypus is another one handled by the
Metaphysics of
>Quality: the "scientific reality" platypus. This is a very large monster that
has been
>disturbing a lot of people for a long time. It was identified a century ago
by the
>mathematician and astronomer, Henri Poincaré who asked, "Why is the reality
most
>acceptable to science one that no small child can be expected to understand?"
>Should reality be something that only a handful of the world's most advanced
physicists
>understand? One would expect at least a majority of people to understand it.
Should
>reality be expressible only in symbols that require university-level
mathematics to
>manipulate? Should it be something that changes from year to year as new
scientific
>theories are formulated? Should it be something about which different schools
of
>physics can quarrel for years with no firm resolution on either side? If this
is so then how
>is it fair to imprison a person in a mental hospital for life with no trial
and no jury and no
>parole for "failing to understand reality"? By this criterion shouldn't all
but a handful of
>the world's most advanced physicists be locked up for life? Who is crazy here
and who
>is sane?
>In a value-centered Metaphysics of Quality this "scientific reality" platypus
vanishes.
>Reality, which is value, is understood by every infant. It is a universal
starting place of
>experience that everyone is confronted with all the time. Within a
Metaphysics of
>Quality, science is a set of static intellectual patterns describing this
reality, but the
>patterns are not the reality they describe."
>Lila Chapter 8
>
>
>Horse
>
>
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:26 BST