Hettinger (hettingr@iglou.com)
Tue, 6 Jan 1998 18:25:06 +0100
Hi!
I'm looking at all the various principles of Quality, and each of them seems an accurate pointer to the Quality
concept. Each comes from a slightly different perspective, and each seems to be complete and concise from that
perspective. However, I can't look at any of them and say that they define the Quality principle. I keep wanting
to say, "Almost, but ..." And I have noticed, that in each case, the more each idea is modified by any of us to
be more correct, the closer it comes to not saying anything at all.
This reminds me of all the thousands of ways that God has been described over the ages, one of which is the
deliberately unpronounceable YHWH. It's also very much like the paradox Richard posed in his first posting to
LS--How Soon is Now.
Pirsig only defined Quality a few times, (thanks, Dave, for sending examples) and each time, it was a pointer from
a particular context, one that he deliberately changed as he and the reader had progressed further in experience.
The genius of his books is that he creates the situation for his readers to know what Quality must be, but it took
two books and many, many perspectives to do it.
I expect the other principles are going to be easier to work with.
Maggie
PS. Here's another perception of MoQ, from another source:
"Stillness is what creates love.
Movement is what creates life.
To be still and still moving, this is everything." -- Duc Yung Cho (?)
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:37 CEST