hi, paul and welcome!
you quote and ask:
"if Quality is
subjective, existing only in the observer, then this Quality that you
make so much of is just a fancy name for whatever you like."
So who is he to say that that's NOT all Q is?
lithien:
in Lila there is a very important passage(p.75) that explains it very
succinctly:
"Any person of any philosophic persuasion who sits on a hot stove will
verify without any intellectual argument whatsoever that he is in an
undeniably low-quality situation: that the value of his predicament is
negative. This low quality is not just a vague, woolly-headed,
crypto-religious, metaphysical abstraction. It is an experience. It is not
a judgment about an experience. It is not a description of experience. The
value itself is an experience."
i'm sure some others in the squad may explain it differently, but for me
this passage illustrates clearly the answer to your question. the reason
why quality is not subjective is because it bypasses judgment. the
experience itself is (in this instance) low-quality before you can even
"think" about it. that is why Quality equals Experience, Pirsig says.
does this make it any clearer?
Lithien
http://members.tripod.com/~lithien/Lila2.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Nestadt <relish@home.com>
To: moq_discuss@moq.org <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Date: Monday, December 14, 1998 8:31 PM
Subject: MD tripping on the 1st step
>hi.
>though i have been fascinated by Pirsig's philosophy since i read ZMM 3
>years ago, i have only joined (or even heard of) your electronic society
>yesterday. So forgive me for lowering the average academic standard of
>your group, but i still have a very basic question. Maybe its that im
>only a high school student, or maybe im just dense, but i can't get past
>one of Pirsig's first steps towards his realization. Everything else
>makes sense to me, but... Why can't Quality just be subjective?
>In his original dilemma in the middle of ZMM, where Pirsig decides that
>since Q is niether Sub. or Obj. it must trancend such catagories, he
>rejects Objective Quality easily (it cannot be measured by scientific
>instruments["Locke's statement that no object, scientific or otherwise,
>is knowable except in terms of its qualities."], and anyway, if Q was
>Obj. evryone would agree on it's presence in each object) but the only
>reason he said that it couldn't be Subjective was because "if Quality is
>subjective, existing only in the observer, then this Quality that you
>make so much of is just a fancy name for whatever you like."
>So who is he to say that that's NOT all Q is. Maybe that's why it's
>undefinable, because it's whatever the hell you like. I really want to
>believe that Q is not just Subjective, that it's an event, that it is
>the life and the Taoist "Way", but i just can't see Why Quality Isn't
>Just Subjective!
>Please help me, this book meant a lot to me when i read it, and it was
>only upon the second read that i noticed this possible flaw (at least to
>my understanding) that was keeping me from fully appreciating LILA. If
>you set me straight i would be forever in your debt.
>
>Also, while im writing anyway, i might as well thank you all for the
>brilliant companion to the MoQ that your website provides. It seems to
>really give the philosophy a new dimension. When i see a mention of,
>say, Hume, whom id heard of and read indirect commentaries on, but never
>actually read up front... i go straight out to the library and read his
>works. At least a good sampling. This, i feel is the best way to go
>about philosophy. i guess you raise us children well.
>
>
>homepage - http://www.moq.org
>queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
>unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
>body of email
>
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:44 BST