xcto concludes:
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.
lithien:
deja vu?
overtones of the zombie articles?
~*~all paths lead to the inevitable conclusion that logic fails
miserably when confronted with the mystery of existence~*~
http://members.tripod.com/~lithien/Lila2.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Xcto@aol.com <Xcto@aol.com>
To: moq_discuss@moq.org <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Date: Wednesday, December 16, 1998 3:28 AM
Subject: Re: MD tripping on the 1st step
>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
>
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