[MD] re , Dan

[ADRIE KINTZIGER]

Dan:

After re-reading 2.2 and 2.3 of Anthony's PhD thesis (it is a really
great source of information for anyone serious about the MOQ, just
fantastic! Anyone not familiar with it should order it today.
Definitely worth the price. It is available on Ant's website
www.robertpirsig.org) it seems to me that Ant isn't forming a
distinction between Quality and value so much as he is saying that
some values cannot be quantified in the way others can be. It appears
Robert Pirsig agrees when he says:

Quality was adopted dynamically. The term itself had high Quality. I just
felt ‘Quality’ had quality the way the students just ‘felt’ some student
papers
were better than others. I used to give the students the advice, ‘First you
just
“see” what has quality, then you figure out why. Don’t reverse the process,
or
you will get all confused.’ It is important to restate this now to avoid the
perennial literary critics’ trap of thinking that the pivotal term
quality is the
result of some rational, analyzable process. (Pirsig, 1995b)

Dan comments:

I think this is what RMP means when he said that to teach writing,
first teach pure quality. Let the student discover for themselves
where quality is and then figure out why. If we try to figure out why
first, confusion arises.



---Incredibly important, i have to study this remarks and lead's, and also
Andre's
questions, and your reflections , Dan,..
There are no other options i guess,..after all , the man is teaching
quality, and it is recognised.--
greetzz, Adrie
Thanks for the appearance, ...not easy after beiing brutalised away by Mark.
I will study this lines, Andre is moving up to the top of the pyramid.
"attention"
-- 
parser