In a message dated 12/14/98 5:26:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, relish@home.com
writes:
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. >>
Hi and welcome
I think the best response to this query is that if Quality was 'just'
subjective it would be that Quality is 'just' whatever you like. But is
clearly obvious that Quality transcends the 'whatever' idea as subjective; we
know somethings are better than others without necessarily having to make a
subjective or objective argument. It reminds me of Pirsigs experiment with
his undergrad students in ZAMM- even though it's hard to define Quality it's
hard not to see it.
This may seem to reinforce your idea that it's all subjective, you are left
then with the question- what's objective? The only answer to that is
'nothing.'
All systems of thought are based on some principle that is considered
'objective' This would contradict it in that there is no basis for any system
of thought. It would be saying that human society is based on unthinking
ritual. It would say that we are just brainwashed automatons that work off of
cultural norms.
Hmm...fintan?
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