Hello MoQ Foci,
I would like to resuggest Ken Clarks topic-suggestion from Nov. '99, which I
consider also a kind of 'Tribute to Ken'-topic. As I could see from my personal
mail-archives it has not been discussed yet. (Correct my if I'm wrong, Magnus) I
added more questions below, to give it more space.
4. Ken Clark (in Nov'99)
"Good is a noun. Good as a noun rather than an adjective is all the
MoQ is about ... if you had to reduce the whole MoQ to a single
sentence, that would be it." What did Pirsig mean by this statement?
Johannes:
Can we interprete this as move of 'Good' back into the center of language and
thinking, in the sense that 'Good' becomes again the subject of language?
Do you think that this implicates a shift of the whole MoQ to a more mystic
definition? Or is it more equivalent to the quotation below?
> ... Not the nature (property?) of the goddess, but the deity, or deity of the
> nature (property?) is the first and true godlike Essence. So that, what has been
> regarded since now for theology and philosophy as the Absolute, the Essence, is not
> God; but that, what has been for those not been regarded as god, this exactly is
> god - that is the nature, the quality, the certainty, the reality at all....
quotation out of: Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach, 1804 -1872, 'Das Wesen des
Christentums'(The essence of christianity) pg 81, Editor:Gustav Lange,Leipzig,
1950:(if any body has a professional translation, that would be great, because
that kind of text is beyond my limits)
With best wishes to all,
JoVo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:21 BST