[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Hey Mark,

Any difference between "constant" and "absolute?" I think they're the 
same concept.

Regards,
Platt




On 7 Feb 2010 at 20:46, markhsmit wrote:

> Hi Magnus,
> Stop putting words into my mouth, that is just annoying.
> If you read what I said rather than what you think I said
> it would be an improvement.  What do you think I mean
> by constant?  That it doesn't evolve?  Perhaps you should
> read Pirsig, because Quality does.  And what are your silly
> analogies?  If you use the Titanic as an example of Quality
> then you really have not got it, get it?  What does the Sound
> of Music have to do with Quality?  If you believe that these
> are examples, please reread Pirsig.
> 
> Pirsig's books state (yes, STATE) that Quality is a guiding
> principle.  If that is not a claim to a constant then I do not know
> what is.  Please do not retort with sophomoric analogies.
> Go have your really good tasting pie, and call it Quality.
> There really is more to the philosophy of Quality than that.
> Think about it.
> 
> What is not constant in the claim for an underlying reality that is
> called Quality?  Remember, I am not talking about a
> fad.
> 
> Cheers,
> Mark

> Ham
> 
> > Ham is referring to Pirsig's postulate that Quality equals Reality. This
> > is inconsistent with his pronouncement that "experience is the cutting
> > edge of reality." If Quality is fixed as a constant of the universe, it
> > canot be modified or actualized by experience, for experience is
> > relative to the subject 'I'. In short, experience serves no purpose in
> > Pirsig's cosmology.
> 
> As always, you manage to jam so many wrongs into a paragraph that it's almost 
> amusing, wasn't it for the fact that some new people might read it and think 
> it's right.
> 
> Quality is not fixed. Have you ever read in ZMM or Lila that it's *fixed* or 
> constant? Oh right, you haven't read any of them, silly me.
> 
> If Quality was fixed, the blockbuster Titanic would still be running each year, 
> and everyone would be amazed at how great a movie it is and cry their way 
> through. No other films would ever be made, because the best movie has already 
> been made. Or perhaps they'd still be running "Sound of music", because nobody 
> ever bothered to try to top that one.
> 
> So, can we agree that Quality is *not* constant?
> 
> 
> In your world, perhaps experience is relative the subject, but in ZMM, one of 
> the most basic and fundamental lessons learned by Phaedrus is the fact that 
> experience is *NOT* subordinated the subject. It's the other way around. I know 
> you don't agree with that, but if you weren't as arrogant as you obviously are, 
> you might at least have the decency to at least try to get the most basic things 
> about the MoQ right.
> 
> Magnus
>