Quality
DubiousChrisJ
A.
DubiousChrisJ wrote:
> Quality, as defined in the Pirsig/Phaedrus Model is made up of two parts:
> Classic quality, and Romantic Quality.
>
> Every field has attributes that can serve as examples of classic quality.
What is meant by the term "field" in this sentence? I understand
"object," but I can quite get the statement, "every object has
atttibutes that can serve as examples..." so---does "field" here mean
things like "painting," "lively arts," "embroidery." "tapestery,"
"sculpture," "bas-relief," "etching," etc.?
If this is the case, do we limit the "classic quality" to the
particular attributes attainable within that "field"? Or is field more
like genre? It doesn't seem to refer to "field of vision," but I
suppose it could.
In
> the design of buildings and homes, classic equality equals the components of
> the structure and the way that they interact to produce the final product.
So - since you used the word 'equals', let me see if I'm getting this
straight. There is no more to the classic quality than merely the
components and the way they interact to produce the final product -
right? If there's an equal sign, then there must be an equation or an
identity statement - it can't be approximate.
I'm not sure how "equality" got into this statement - how is equality
related to quality, or is that a typo? (Not jammin on you, truly
curious).
I like the idea that one quality of an aesthetic should be "the
identifiable parts, their proportions and the way those parts interact
within or to form a whole," although I've added some dynamism and
process to the aesthetic, already. This could be ONE quality. You
appear to have two in your post (classic and romantic).
Can't there be more? Classical concerns with proportion, mean,
moderation, restraint, seem to be active in the 'classic' quality. How
would you view the Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles from this
viewpoint - or that new glass thing they built outside the Louvre?
Does it possess this quality?
>
> Romantic quality is reflected in the aesthetic perception of an object. In
> our architectural example above, quality would be represented by the overall
> appearance of the structure. Romantic quality is a response to the question
> of whether what was built is pleasing to the eye.
Let me see if I can launch a test of this. Would "pretty" or
"beautiful" be appropriate synonyms for this romantic quality (the sum
of its parts...pleasing to the eye?)
This notion of "romantic quality" can be extended to any object at all
for which we are capable of developing an aesthetic, correct? For
example, it could be applied to a perfume, as well as to art?
>
> True quality, according to the Pirsig, is not classic quality or romantic
> quality but a combination of the two. For a piece of art to have true
> quality, it must contain Classic quality in components, structure, and
> assembly, and Romantic quality in its overall appearance and effect on the
> viewer.
So - it has to be proportional (in some manner) and pretty or beautiful
(please to the eye, as a whole), right?
Well - I'd say that's a pretty limited view of qualities/quality so
far. It's an additive view (take quality one plus quality two, mix and
get quality 1+2, which is the true one). It seems a start in
aesthetics - and certainly I would not discourage anyone from using it.
I like the "pleasing to the eye" part - that's the subjective part.
What makes something "pleasing to the eye," though, is unstated and
opaque.
>
> The components, structure, and assembly which make up the classic quality
> judgement of art are broken down into formal qualities, which are
> composition, color, line, texture, scale, proportion, balance, contrast, and
> rhythm.
I'd agree that these are classic qualities (and I mentioned them in my
post on Pythagorus - I think Pirsig is pretty much plagiarizing
Pythagorus (but perhaps Pythagorus doesn't mind).
>
> The components of Romantic Quality are more subjective,
Subjectivity can't be quantified. So, yes they are more subjective
than quantifiable lines or shapes - but everything is more subjective
than something objective. Is there a scale of subjectivity that some
have invented to ascertain what "pleasing to the eye" might mean?
and involve the
> audience answering questions such as "How does it look?", "How does it make
> you feel?" and "What is the artist trying to say here?"
>
> Elements from both sides must be weighed when attempting to determing the
> true quality, and thus value, of the piece of art.
>
> Opinions?
I'll step right up. : - }
I don't see how you get to "true quality" this this forumula - much
less "value." It's a start, this conception or formula. I can think
of dozens of qualities it fails to mention and leaves up to
subjectivity, that could very well be placed on the classic "objective"
side. Unfortunately, as both Pirsig and Pythagorus knew, even the
classic norms were subject to bitter debate then, now and through all
time.
So far, there's no place for the artist's aesthetic, and no place for
media that aren't subject to classical standards of mean and proportion
(etc.) So, this view is missing:
qualities (I could name a bunch), perspective (I'm not an audience, I'm
just one person - do I have to get together with a bunch of people to
make this work? does the artist count as two people - at least?)
I would much prefer the viewpoint of one single aesthete over any
"audience" in general. Audiences tend to be tame or searing or, even,
mindless.
But true quality can't be appended on at the end of this working
definition. You've got, now, a type of standard - and I wouldn't
object to it. I do indeed use this set of principles in my own view of
art - but in no way does this equation or view produce value. Our
ultimate freedom comes from being to ascertain at all times, and in
what ways each one of us desires (as individuals) the *value* of
anything at all. It cannot be told or sold to us.
Interestingly, your statements so far, on quality, do not distinguish
(in my view) between art and nature.
The Earth itself is a masterpiece of form, motion, line, color,
geometry, angles, means and so forth. So is the Grand Canyon.
Facilitator's work, Yosemite, shows the same for Yosemite - although
the "real" Yosemite is quite different from his art. But, all of these
qualify as having classical quality - to me. What could be better
proportioned than Bright Angel Creek running down through the Kaibab
limestone? Or the layers in Grand Canyon, or the way the Great
Discontinuity snakes and shifts its secret way up into the sandstone?
It's also pleasing to the eye (mine and many other people's). It's
also a subject of art - but how would you distinguish, using your
notion of quality, between Grand Canyon and art (to make it easy, let's
say a great painting with Grand Canyon as its inimitable subject).
Don't you need to pre-establish a few things (aesthetic intent of the
artist, media, etc.)? Maybe not.
But - so far, this few of quality merely sets up curatorial principles
for a well-curated set of pieces, not any assessment - at all of "true"
value or "true" quality.
Cheers,
A.
>
> --
> http://dubiousprofundity.com
> Dubious Wisdom for Dubious Times - Check it out!
>
> ------=_Part_114879_19949907.1165353990581
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
> X-Google-AttachSize: 1962
>
> <div>Quality, as defined in the Pirsig/Phaedrus Model is made up of two parts: Classic quality, and Romantic Quality. </div>
> <div> </div>
> <div>Every field has attributes that can serve as examples of classic quality. In the design of buildings and homes, classic equality equals the components of the structure and the way that they interact to produce the final product.
> </div>
> <div> </div>
> <div>Romantic quality is reflected in the aesthetic perception of an object. In our architectural example above, quality would be represented by the overall appearance of the structure. Romantic quality is a response to the question of whether what was built is pleasing to the eye.
> </div>
> <div> </div>
> <div>True quality, according to the Pirsig, is not classic quality or romantic quality but a combination of the two. For a piece of art to have true quality, it must contain Classic quality in components, structure, and assembly, and Romantic quality in its overall appearance and effect on the viewer.
> </div>
> <div> </div>
> <div>The components, structure, and assembly which make up the classic quality judgement of art are broken down into formal qualities, which are composition, color, line, texture, scale, proportion, balance, contrast, and rhythm.
> </div>
> <div> </div>
> <div>The components of Romantic Quality are more subjective, and involve the audience answering questions such as "How does it look?", "How does it make you feel?" and "What is the artist trying to say here?"
> </div>
> <div> </div>
> <div>Elements from both sides must be weighed when attempting to determing the true quality, and thus value, of the piece of art. </div>
> <div> </div>
> <div>Opinions?</div>
> <div><br>-- <br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://dubiousprofundity.com/" target="_blank">http://dubiousprofundity.com</a><br>Dubious Wisdom for Dubious Times - Check it out! </div>
>
> ------=_Part_114879_19949907.1165353990581--
Pottsie
DubiousChrisJ <digitalp...@gmail.com> wrote:
(Pottsie)I have always had a problem with Pirsig's dilemna with "quality".....perhaps it stems from those electrodes attached to his head. =)"Quality" is both an noun and an adjective. As a noun it relates to a things "essence" or "nature". As an adjective, it relates to the "value" of a thing....as in "high quality or low quality"From Merriam-Webster:Main Entry: 1qual·i·tyPronunciation: 'kwä-l&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English qualite, from Anglo-French qualité, from Latin qualitat-, qualitas, from qualis of what kind; akin to Latin qui who -- more at WHO
1 a : peculiar and essential character : NATURE <her ethereal quality -- Gay Talese> b : an inherent feature : PROPERTY <had a quality of stridence, dissonance -- Roald Dahl>Main Entry: 2quality
Function: adjective
: being of high quality Main Entry: 2quality
Function: adjective
: being of high qualityPirsig never gets down to the "heart" of the matter, which is really its Essence. He could have used other words besides Quality and would have said a lot more than he did. "Essence", "Nature", "Spirit", "Core", "Heart", "Being". Why he chose "Quality" has never ceased to amaze me.What Pirsig calls "Classic" is the Noun form......which has to do with the thing's Nature. In actuality, the Nature of the Thing IS the thing.....The Physical is merely the appearance or expression of the Thing, the symbol or manifestation of the Thing.....It is NOT the Thing Itself......Its Being or Essence.
Everything has "quality"......in and of itself, it has a Nature or Essence, and needs no outside observation, but only in its noun form.What Pirsig calls "Romantic", attaches value......and is simply Quality as adjective. "Quality" as an adjective, MUST be subjective because it is a matter of thought.....a matter of opinion.The problem with what he says about "True" quality, is that Truth is Absolute and cannot be divided and remain Truth. As an adjective, Quality becomes a matter of Good and Evil (Bad) and is a descent from Truth......is NOT Absolute, but Relative."Quality" as a noun is BEYOND good and evil......beyond value judgements. It is simply what the thing is. Neither Good nor Bad, but Pure Being.Phaedra was so muddled because he confused the Absolute with the Relative.NamastePottsie
Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
A.
A.
I like your quote, too.
------------------------------------------------------In Italy for 30
years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed,
but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance.
In Switzerland they had brotherly love, they had 500 years of democracy
and peace. And what did they produce? The cuckoo clock. -- Orson Welles
Pottsie
"A." <atalanta....@gmail.com> wrote:
Great post, Pottsie. Thanks. You really did justice to the topic.
A.
(Pottsie)Thanks! I wanted to say one other thing about the word "Quality and a pet peeve of mine! =)I absolutely want to "hurl" when someone uses the word "quality" as in the following:"That is a quality stereo".....or "That cafe serves quality coffee."When used like that, "quality" requires a modifier, such as "good", "bad", "high", or "low". If they don't, they are using the Noun as an adjective, which is terribly poor grammar.A statement like that is tantamount to saying "That cafe serves essence coffee. Doesn't make sense and...............drives me up a wall! lolWhile I'm on it......one of the more recent abominations to hit the language is "She went missing" ....used mostly by newspeople when describing a missing person story. I'm sorry....she didn't "go" missing on Saturday.......She has been missing since Saturday!(Don't know if that has hit the Brits yet!)Thanks....I just needed to get that off my chest!(Sigh) I feel better now! lol
(A.)
I like your quote, too.
(Pottsie)Thanks......I change them up ever so often. The one from O.W. below is a scream! =)(Old A.)
In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed,
but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance.
In Switzerland they had brotherly love, they had 500 years of democracy
and peace. And what did they produce? The cuckoo clock. -- Orson Welles
NamastePottsie
Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
DubiousChrisJ
Pottsie
DubiousChrisJ <digitalp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hmmm....well, both of you have given me pause in my understanding, and definition of quality, in your rebuttals.
I've long loved Pirsig's (Phaedrus') model for quality, because quality IS such an intangible, and I like to quanitfy those things as much as possible. I've listened to the rebuttals of this model, but I think I need to chew on it for a while. Pottsie, you attached a few zen perceptions to this that I haven't added in, and I am not convinced I accept them as reasonable rebuttals, but instead of addressing them here, I'm going to digest it a bit.
(Pottsie)I assume you are speaking of the following observations:(Old Pottsie)
What Pirsig calls "Classic" is the Noun form......which has to do with the thing's Nature. In actuality, the Nature of the Thing IS the thing.....The Physical is merely the appearance or expression of the Thing, the symbol or manifestation of the Thing.....It is NOT the Thing Itself......Its Being or Essence.
(Pottsie)When a scientist talks about a flower....not a specific flower....but a flower in general. The "Idea" of a flower. The Essence of ALL flower forms. THAT is the Thing Itself. The specific physical flower is merely the Form. The Idea of the flower is one dimensional......it is mental or spiritual. The physical flower must have a plurality of dimensions. It is the expression, symbol, or manifestation of the idea.This is the whole crux of the argument of the Mind/Matter or Spirit/Matter debate. The Materialists state that the Essence or Idea doesn't exist.....not realizing that if the Idea doesn't exist, the Form certainly can't either.I keep stating on this forum that God (Reality/Truth) consists IMHO of three things: 1. The Thing Itself (Idea/Thought), 2. The Way It works (Law/Principle), and 3. What It Does (Form/Manifestation).....but of course I don't get too far, because everyone is so busy shouting that the other person is full of crap! (Present company excluded!)The word Essence......is connected to the verb "to be".......Essence means a Thing in its Identity..........Existence......But it has nothing to do with the thing's Form. (except that it is the pattern from which the Form arises) The Form comes and goes, but the Essence Remains....it is eternal. It is one dimensional........Space and Time, as we all know, are two dimensional....and One comes before Two! lol(Not attempting to do anything other than to mess with your "digestion" ROFLMAO!!!)NamastePottsie
Any questions? Get answers on any topic at Yahoo! Answers. Try it now.
paradox
to clarify some of your thoughts...
Pottsie wrote:
> "Quality" is both an noun and an adjective. As a noun it relates to a things "essence" or "nature". As an adjective, it relates to the "value" of a thing....as in "high quality or low quality"
>
> From Merriam-Webster:
>
> Main Entry: 1qual·i·ty
> Pronunciation: 'kwä-l&-tE
> Function: noun
> Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
> Etymology: Middle English qualite, from Anglo-French qualité, from Latin qualitat-, qualitas, from qualis of what kind; akin to Latin qui who -- more at WHO
> 1 a : peculiar and essential character : NATURE <her ethereal quality -- Gay Talese> b : an inherent feature : PROPERTY <had a quality of stridence, dissonance -- Roald Dahl>
>
> Main Entry: 2quality
> Function: adjective
> : being of high quality Main Entry: 2quality
> Function: adjective
> : being of high quality
>
> Pirsig never gets down to the "heart" of the matter, which is really its Essence. He could have used other words besides Quality and would have said a lot more than he did. "Essence", "Nature", "Spirit", "Core", "Heart", "Being". Why he chose "Quality" has never ceased to amaze me.
>
> What Pirsig calls "Classic" is the Noun form......which has to do with the thing's Nature. In actuality, the Nature of the Thing IS the thing.....The Physical is merely the appearance or expression of the Thing, the symbol or manifestation of the Thing.....It is NOT the Thing Itself......Its Being or Essence.
> Everything has "quality"......in and of itself, it has a Nature or Essence, and needs no outside observation, but only in its noun form.
Setting aside the philosophical limitations of dictionary definitions
for a moment, there is surely a material distinction between the
"essence" of an object, and the "nature" of an object, fine as it might
be; the former is a "purposive" characteristic (it's reason for being,
if you like), the latter is an "ecologically descriptive"
characteristic (contextual/relational). Now, if you accept this
distinction, is THE object defined in it's essence, or in it's nature?
Following, Quality cannot possibly be the "essence" of a thing (it does
not exist to exist to exist, the seemingly tautological argument you
suggest), it must be in the "nature" of a thing (i.e. it must possess a
relational characteristic defined by it's ecological "landscape").
> What Pirsig calls "Romantic", attaches value......and is simply Quality as adjective. "Quality" as an adjective, MUST be subjective because it is a matter of thought.....a matter of opinion.
So what is this relational characteristic that "attaches" to an object?
It must be, and here we are at this again, an intersubjective not a
subjective qualia. So when we speak of Quality as noun, we define the
object by association with the concept. When we speak of Quality as
adjective, we (should properly, as you point out) qualify the concept
in use, in relation to other objects.
Perhaps.
Pottsie
paradox <eado...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Pottsie, i'm very confused. Pirsig i need to read. I also need to you
to clarify some of your thoughts...
Pottsie wrote:
> "Quality" is both an noun and an adjective. As a noun it relates to a things "essence" or "nature". As an adjective, it relates to the "value" of a thing....as in "high quality or low quality"
>
> From Merriam-Webster:
>
> Main Entry: 1qual·i·ty
> Pronunciation: 'kwä-l&-tE
> Function: noun
> Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
> Etymology: Middle English qualite, from Anglo-French qualité, from Latin qualitat-, qualitas, from qualis of what kind; akin to Latin qui who -- more at WHO
> 1 a : peculiar and essential character : NATURE b : an inherent feature : PROPERTY
>
> Main Entry: 2quality
> Function: adjective
> : being of high quality Main Entry: 2quality
> Function: adjective
> : being of high quality
>
> Pirsig never gets down to the "heart" of the matter, which is really its Essence. He could have used other words besides Quality and would have said a lot more than he did. "Essence", "Nature", "Spirit", "Core", "Heart", "Being". Why he chose "Quality" has never ceased to amaze me.
>
> What Pirsig calls "Classic" is the Noun form......which has to do with the thing's Nature. In actuality, the Nature of the Thing IS the thing.....The Physical is merely the appearance or expression of the Thing, the symbol or manifestation of the Thing.....It is NOT the Thing Itself......Its Being or Essence.
> Everything has "quality"......in and of itself, it has a Nature or Essence, and needs no outside observation, but only in its noun form.
(Paradox)
Setting aside the philosophical limitations of dictionary definitions
for a moment, there is surely a material distinction between the
"essence" of an object, and the "nature" of an object, fine as it might
be; the former is a "purposive" characteristic (it's reason for being,
if you like), the latter is an "ecologically descriptive"
characteristic (contextual/relational). Now, if you accept this
distinction, is THE object defined in it's essence, or in it's nature?
(Pottsie)Although we speak of the Essence (Quality) of Something as a noun, It is, in reality, not one....though it MUST be in language. The Thing Itself is NOT an object......THAT is the point! lol (I have referred a number of times on this list to "The Thing Itself (which is really not a Thing)" If it is not an object It cannot be defined......... If it cannot be defined, it cannot, in Reality, be a noun. So what is It? It is the Unknowable. It is Spirit! (It only becomes a "Thing"...but not really.....when we talk about it....because of the dual nature of Language. In actuality, Spirit is Spirit and NOT a "Thing" or Object.)
(Paradox)
Following, Quality cannot possibly be the "essence" of a thing (it does
not exist to exist to exist, the seemingly tautological argument you
suggest), it must be in the "nature" of a thing (i.e. it must possess a
relational characteristic defined by it's ecological "landscape").
(Pottsie)Could you restate this? I'm not sure what you are asking.
(Old Pottsie)
> What Pirsig calls "Romantic", attaches value......and is simply Quality as adjective. "Quality" as an adjective, MUST be subjective because it is a matter of thought.....a matter of opinion.
(Paradox)
So what is this relational characteristic that "attaches" to an object?
It must be, and here we are at this again, an intersubjective not a
subjective qualia. So when we speak of Quality as noun, we define the
object by association with the concept. When we speak of Quality as
adjective, we (should properly, as you point out) qualify the concept
in use, in relation to other objects.
Perhaps.
(Pottsie)I would think that the relational characteristic that "attaches" to an object would be the other object that it is in relationship to. One cannot have a relationship without at least TWO things. It is the characteristic that makes up a relationship.When we get to this point, it comes very close to the Oneness of Mind and the Oneness of all things. IMHO, I have to remember that the very closest relationship that two can have is NO relationship......, and there is the paradox, Paradox! =) I, in essence, am you!This is the reason IMHO, that Phaedrus, went bonkers.....it is the paradox that results when the One meets the Many.....when the Ego meets God.NamastePottsie
Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited.
Pottsie
paradox <eado...@hotmail.com> wrote:
(Paradox)
Setting aside the philosophical limitations of dictionary definitions
for a moment, there is surely a material distinction between the
"essence" of an object, and the "nature" of an object, fine as it might
be; the former is a "purposive" characteristic (it's reason for being,
if you like), the latter is an "ecologically descriptive"
characteristic (contextual/relational). Now, if you accept this
distinction, is THE object defined in it's essence, or in it's nature?
(Old Pottsie)
Although we speak of the Essence (Quality) of Something as a noun, It is, in reality, not one....though it MUST be in language. The Thing Itself is NOT an object......THAT is the point! lol (I have referred a number of times on this list to "The Thing Itself (which is really not a Thing)" If it is not an object It cannot be defined......... If it cannot be defined, it cannot, in Reality, be a noun. So what is It? It is the Unknowable. It is Spirit! (It only becomes a "Thing"...but not really.....when we talk about it....because of the dual nature of Language. In actuality, Spirit is Spirit and NOT a "Thing" or Object.)
(Pottsie)I wanted to add the following:From Wikipedia on Euclid: "A spatial point is a concept of mind, without independent existence, often used to define an exact location in space. It has no volume, area or length."A point, from which any Form, or material "Thing" must arise is necessarily without form itself. ie The Material arises from the Non-material (Spirit/Mind).Therefore, any material object, arises from Mind.....The Subject. And Mind is Infinite.Essentially, (ahem!) "Essence" is the same as Euclid's Point. Get the point? (ahem #2!)And the Point of something is Its Meaning. It is the Logos. The Word or the Thought of God. IMHO. =)NamastePottsie
Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
A.
More like this, please (you too, Pottsie).
Great, succinct, insightful, etc. Lovely.
A.
paradox
> Although we speak of the Essence (Quality) of Something as a noun, It is, in reality, not one....though it MUST be in language. The Thing Itself is NOT an object......THAT is the point! lol (I have referred a number of times on this list to "The Thing Itself (which is really not a Thing)" If it is not an object It cannot be defined......... If it cannot be defined, it cannot, in Reality, be a noun. So what is It? It is the Unknowable. It is Spirit! (It only becomes a "Thing"...but not really.....when we talk about it....because of the dual nature of Language. In actuality, Spirit is Spirit and NOT a "Thing" or Object.)
I suspect you're enjoying a perverse pleasure in confusing the hair off
my already receeding hairline! If this "thing" is unknowable, how on
earth do you know of it?!? What are we talking about now, anyway?
> (Paradox)
> Following, Quality cannot possibly be the "essence" of a thing (it does
> not exist to exist to exist, the seemingly tautological argument you
> suggest), it must be in the "nature" of a thing (i.e. it must possess a
> relational characteristic defined by it's ecological "landscape").
>
> (Pottsie)
>
> Could you restate this? I'm not sure what you are asking.
If you accept the original distinction i proposed, that between
"essence" and "nature", then Quality cannot be the reason for the
existence of an object, thus Quality cannot reside in the "essence" of
the object. Consequently, it must reside in the "nature" of the object;
it must be a characteristic of the relationship of an object with it's
environment; the idea is similar, in fact, to the proposition that the
existence of "time" is conditional and dependent on the existence of
multiple discrete objects in space (see Hadoz's excellent thread).
> When we get to this point, it comes very close to the Oneness of Mind and the Oneness of all things. IMHO, I have to remember that the very closest relationship that two can have is NO relationship......, and there is the paradox, Paradox! =) I, in essence, am you!
>
> This is the reason IMHO, that Phaedrus, went bonkers.....it is the paradox that results when the One meets the Many.....when the Ego meets God.
I'm pretty close to following in the eminent footsteps of Phaedrus, at
this point, Pottsie, trying to figure out what you're positing. You are
me?? How's that then?
paradox
that Quality is not a characteristic of the "essence" of an object, but
of it's "nature". Thanks.
paradox
Pottsie
paradox <eado...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Pottsie, i'm afraid you're not helping me very much here...
> Although we speak of the Essence (Quality) of Something as a noun, It is, in reality, not one....though it MUST be in language. The Thing Itself is NOT an object......THAT is the point! lol (I have referred a number of times on this list to "The Thing Itself (which is really not a Thing)" If it is not an object It cannot be defined......... If it cannot be defined, it cannot, in Reality, be a noun. So what is It? It is the Unknowable. It is Spirit! (It only becomes a "Thing"...but not really.....when we talk about it....because of the dual nature of Language. In actuality, Spirit is Spirit and NOT a "Thing" or Object.)
(Paradox)
I suspect you're enjoying a perverse pleasure in confusing the hair off
my already receeding hairline!
(Pottsie)Not in the least! lol I probably would give you a run for your money in the hairline department! =)(Paradox)
If this "thing" is unknowable, how on earth do you know of it?!? What are we talking about now, anyway?
(Pottsie)Not unknowable in the sense of "being" , but "unknowable" in the sense of "unanalyzable". Quantum Physics tells us that the basis of the Universe is some sort of energy which is ultimately unknowable...unanalyzable.....it can't be be divided into parts. That DOESN'T mean that we can't know anything about it. But once we discover something about it....there is still a residual that is unknowable. We keep pushing the boundaries of the Unknown further and further back. But we will NEVER get to the Unknown through the Intellect. It is NOT an intellectual (analytical) knowledge. It is an Intuitive Knowing.......a Gnosis. Intuitive because ultimately it IS US! It is Infinite Mind.....Consciousness.
> (Old Paradox)
> Following, Quality cannot possibly be the "essence" of a thing (it does
> not exist to exist to exist, the seemingly tautological argument you
> suggest), it must be in the "nature" of a thing (i.e. it must possess a
> relational characteristic defined by it's ecological "landscape").
>
> (Old Pottsie)
>
> Could you restate this? I'm not sure what you are asking.
(Paradox)
If you accept the original distinction i proposed, that between
"essence" and "nature", then Quality cannot be the reason for the
existence of an object, thus Quality cannot reside in the "essence" of
the object. Consequently, it must reside in the "nature" of the object;
it must be a characteristic of the relationship of an object with it's
environment; the idea is similar, in fact, to the proposition that the
existence of "time" is conditional and dependent on the existence of
multiple discrete objects in space (see Hadoz's excellent thread).
(Pottsie)The Quality that you are discussing is in relationship to something else, and therefore RELATIVE.What I am talking about........Essence/Nature/Spirit/Being......is The Thing Itself.....considered by Itself and NOT in relation to any other thing.....In other words, The Absolute.
> When we get to this point, it comes very close to the Oneness of Mind and the Oneness of all things. IMHO, I have to remember that the very closest relationship that two can have is NO relationship......, and there is the paradox, Paradox! =) I, in essence, am you!
>
> This is the reason IMHO, that Phaedrus, went bonkers.....it is the paradox that results when the One meets the Many.....when the Ego meets God.
(Paradox)
I'm pretty close to following in the eminent footsteps of Phaedrus, at
this point, Pottsie, trying to figure out what you're positing. You are
me?? How's that then?
(Pottsie)It goes back to what we were talking about with regard to "knowing". If you recall, there is a sense where the verb "to know" can indicate union.......as in "Boaz knew Judith"......to "know" in THIS sense, which is used often in the Bible, means to have sexual relations with another......"and the two became one"One cannot have a subject without an object and vice versa. We can only be conscious of something to the extent we ARE it. When we "know" something it becomes part of our Being. I don't know if you've ever read "Stranger in a Strange Land"......but essentially that is "Grokking" a thing. LOLThe Universe is One. (as seen in the word itself......UNIverse)......but it is made up of Many things. It is Absolute.......The All.....The Universe......The One. While at the same time being the Many. The Infinite is made up of Finite parts......except that ALL of the Infinite is contained by necessity in any of it's parts. So as I partake of the Infinite........so do you. And as we do......individually we are one with the Infinite. IMHO.....it is the mystical meaning of Jesus' statement that "I and my Father are One." (He did not mean it, like so many Christians, like Chevy Chase used to on SNL, when he would come on the News segment and introduce himself as "Hi! I'm Chevy Chase.......and you're NOT!"NamastePottsie
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
paradox
There is a residual ephemeral property of a "Thing", which cannot be
further reduced by the known laws of physics. This property is
"unknowable" and "unanalysable", because the very existence of the
"Thing" is a composite part of our consciousness, our consciousness
being one and the same as the known universe. How am i doing so far?
Pottsie wrote:
> Not unknowable in the sense of "being" , but "unknowable" in the sense of "unanalyzable". Quantum Physics tells us that the basis of the Universe is some sort of energy which is ultimately unknowable...unanalyzable.....it can't be be divided into parts. That DOESN'T mean that we can't know anything about it. But once we discover something about it....there is still a residual that is unknowable. We keep pushing the boundaries of the Unknown further and further back. But we will NEVER get to the Unknown through the Intellect. It is NOT an intellectual (analytical) knowledge. It is an Intuitive Knowing.......a Gnosis. Intuitive because ultimately it IS US! It is Infinite Mind.....Consciousness.
>
>
> What I am talking about........Essence/Nature/Spirit/Being......is The Thing Itself.....considered by Itself and NOT in relation to any other thing.....In other words, The Absolute.
>
>
James Barlow
paradox <eado...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on Yahoo! Answers.
paradox
difficulties, i know; but hoping to shed some light on this elusive
distinction.
The "essence" of an organism is the reproductive imperative. The
"nature" of an organism is the adaptive imperative. This, of course,
may be the biologists point of view.
The Chopra metaphor is intriguing: "All is virtual".
> ---------------------------------
> Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on Yahoo! Answers.
> --0-183071641-1165707642=:1809
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-Google-AttachSize: 1798
>
> It isn't clear to me what the "essence" of something and its "nature" have about them that are distinct from one another, but re. the earlier (Euclid) I saw today on CBC an assertion by Deepra Chokra (sp?) that we are somewhat like euclidian points and that therefore death should not be feared. "Without independent existence," etc. JB<BR><BR><B><I>paradox <eado...@hotmail.com></I></B> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR>You make a fine imaginative argument here in support of the assertion<BR>that Quality is not a characteristic of the "essence" of an object, but<BR>of it's "nature". Thanks.<BR><BR><BR>Pottsie wrote:<BR><BR>> (Pottsie)<BR>><BR>> I wanted to add the following:<BR>><BR>> From Wikipedia on Euclid: "A spatial point is a concept of mind, without independent existence, often used to define an exact location in space. It has no volume, area or
> length."<BR>><BR>> A point, from which any Form, or material "Thing" must arise is necessarily without form itself. ie The Material arises from the Non-material (Spirit/Mind).<BR>><BR>> Therefore, any material object, arises from Mind.....The Subject. And Mind is Infinite.<BR>><BR>> Essentially, (ahem!) "Essence" is the same as Euclid's Point. Get the point? (ahem #2!)<BR>><BR>> And the Point of something is Its Meaning. It is the Logos. The Word or the Thought of God. IMHO. =)<BR>> <BR>> Namaste<BR>> <BR>> Pottsie<BR>><BR><BR><BR>
> <hr size=1>Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on
> <a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTEwOARfcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx">Yahoo! Answers</a>.
> --0-183071641-1165707642=:1809--
paradox
A. wrote:
> I think you're onto something - with the analogy. "Essence" would be
> how you would recognize yourself, anywhere, anytime, stripped of
> history, a particular nature, a particular body. What's essential to
> you? "Reproductive" works - so does "reincarnative."
>
> Some want to equate that with their nature, their adaptive biology (I
> am my body, etc.) They would then see changes to their bodies (such as
> aging or weight gain or death) as fraught with imperilment to their
> essence. I think such a mode is deeply embedded in - and therefore
> probably created by - Western societies, in particular. I think this
> mode (the one where the distinction is not made) is not only popular,
> but many have abandoned any attempt to make the distinction.
>
> This leads to a lack of knowledge, ultimately. Whether one's essence
> is essential only to oneself - or shared in any way - or has identity
> to other essences, cannot be looked at if the distinction isn't made.
>
> The essence of a painting is not the paint, in other words. And the
> quality of a painting could be talked about purely in terms of paint,
> strokes, technique - the "nature" of the painting. That would be
> collapsing the same distinction, when speaking of painting.
>
> But, you can't get more essential than "essence" - failure to ponder or
> look for it has very definite results, in art and in life.
>
> A.
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> With regard to excellence, it is not enough to know, but we must try to
> have and use it.
>
> ~Aristotle~
A.
Pirsig mentioned (and that obscures the rest of this discussion) is
"pleasing to the eye." Now, I'm not adverse to prettiness - in fact, I
think "attractiveness" is important - but somehow embedded (truly) in
what you're calling essence - not the eye.
On the other hand, any person who takes the time to be pleasing to the
eye (and is not handicapped by some physical quality that lies outside
pleasingness) is bound to be "pleasing to the eye" - but it is in this
dimension that culture enters in. And some other things, too - but are
they eternal? Part of me says yes (those curly headed Greek youths -
well, they're just gorgeous, and so are those Venuses - so the Greeks
and Romans are trying to tell us something - it is NOT Barbra S. who is
gorgeous - she's something else - elegant perhaps - but not "pleasing
to the eye" of the Greeks or Romans.)
Essence is entirely different.
The physical hand we're dealt (nature - in part) is one concept (I
think it's important not to call it a "thing," which I was about to do
- nature may, from various perspectives, be a "set" of "things").
The essence (which must similarly remain conceptual, and is very likely
not to be ' a sum of its parts' kind of thing) - is a separate concept
from nature - but they also are concepts that exist as if they were
things, I guess I'm trying to say.
Okay - now your turn. These are concepts that are more like "things"
- so I'm going to call them ideals (nature and essence, both). That's
two "very strong" concepts - necessarily related, I believe - but not
necessarily the only two - not necessarily dualistic. I would have no
way of knowing.
I should stop here, because there's a possible error in the last
paragraph - and it's your call. Essence could be conceptual/ideal and
nature could be real? I have never worked out the relationship of the
so-called "real" to the "ideal" - and I have no idea if these two
concepts relate to that distinction. Seems possible that they are both
mixed (ideal/real) in some sense - in which case, you're working on a
set of ideas from a philosophically complex point of view.
I think you can work it out though.
Cheers,
A.
paradox
A. wrote:
> Yes - there is. And, the more I think about it, the one "quality" that
> Pirsig mentioned (and that obscures the rest of this discussion) is
> "pleasing to the eye." Now, I'm not adverse to prettiness - in fact, I
> think "attractiveness" is important - but somehow embedded (truly) in
> what you're calling essence - not the eye.
Quite right. But here's an interesting question; if not the eye, how
does one percieve this attractiveness?
> On the other hand, any person who takes the time to be pleasing to the
> eye (and is not handicapped by some physical quality that lies outside
> pleasingness) is bound to be "pleasing to the eye"
You'd have thought; though not always, of course.
- but it is in this
> dimension that culture enters in. And some other things, too - but are
> they eternal? Part of me says yes (those curly headed Greek youths -
> well, they're just gorgeous, and so are those Venuses - so the Greeks
> and Romans are trying to tell us something - it is NOT Barbra S. who is
> gorgeous - she's something else - elegant perhaps - but not "pleasing
> to the eye" of the Greeks or Romans.)
Yes, but i don't think that in the main, the ancient Greeks and Romans
were particularly siezed by a passion for the intellectual study of
beauty and eroticism; other interests perhaps, no less functional, i'd
suggest. Interestingly, subsuming both interests is a powerful capacity
for imaginative thought?
>
> Essence is entirely different.
>
> The physical hand we're dealt (nature - in part) is one concept (I
> think it's important not to call it a "thing," which I was about to do
> - nature may, from various perspectives, be a "set" of "things").
I like this thought; perhaps a "set" of relationships even.
>
> The essence (which must similarly remain conceptual, and is very likely
> not to be ' a sum of its parts' kind of thing) - is a separate concept
> from nature - but they also are concepts that exist as if they were
> things, I guess I'm trying to say.
>
> Okay - now your turn. These are concepts that are more like "things"
> - so I'm going to call them ideals (nature and essence, both). That's
> two "very strong" concepts - necessarily related, I believe - but not
> necessarily the only two - not necessarily dualistic. I would have no
> way of knowing.
Hmm, yes, these concepts relate to the defining characteristics of
objects, fundamental categories if you like; fundamental enough to
accomodate both the animate and the inanimate. "Are they dualistic?" is
an interesting question, and one i'd like to mull over for a while.
They're certainly symbiotic.
>
> I should stop here, because there's a possible error in the last
> paragraph - and it's your call. Essence could be conceptual/ideal and
> nature could be real? I have never worked out the relationship of the
> so-called "real" to the "ideal" - and I have no idea if these two
> concepts relate to that distinction. Seems possible that they are both
> mixed (ideal/real) in some sense - in which case, you're working on a
> set of ideas from a philosophically complex point of view.
I see what you mean; i wonder, though, if we can apply "lower order"
(sentience dependent)categories to fit? Having said that, i think the
"real vs ideal" question deserves it's own thread. What do you think?
Have a good week.
Pottsie
paradox <eado...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think i'm getting to grips with your idea, Pottsie; let's see...
There is a residual ephemeral property of a "Thing", which cannot be
further reduced by the known laws of physics. This property is
"unknowable" and "unanalysable", because the very existence of the
"Thing" is a composite part of our consciousness, our consciousness
being one and the same as the known universe. How am i doing so far?
(Pottsie)Pretty much right on, I would say. I would add that I don't know if this is true or not, though it is the way I see it....so far! =)NamastePottsie
Pottsie
James Barlow <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It isn't clear to me what the "essence" of something and its "nature" have about them that are distinct from one another,
(Pottsie)(JB)It can be looked at as "Essence" is TheThing Itself......and Its Nature as Its characteristics. ie what It does How It behaves
but re. the earlier (Euclid) I saw today on CBC an assertion by Deepra Chokra (sp?) that we are somewhat like euclidian points and that therefore death should not be feared. "Without independent existence," etc. JB
(Pottsie)If a thing exists independently of any other thing......then it is The Absolute. That IS its Essence! lolNamastePottsie
DubiousChrisJ
I've been reading everyone with rapt attention, but I have to say, I'm beginning to think I am one of the few literalists on the forum. The concept of quality was taken far into the realm of metaphysics.
Pottsie
DubiousChrisJ <digitalp...@gmail.com> wrote:
I've been reading everyone with rapt attention, but I have to say, I'm beginning to think I am one of the few literalists on the forum. The concept of quality was taken far into the realm of metaphysics.I posed a question on the Word Use thread which was left unanswered. A. posited that it was impossible to paint a canvas primary red.
(Pottsie)But you started a new thread called "Quality" using Pirsig, Phaedrus and ZAMM as a lead in. How can one discuss the word "Quality" using "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and NOT go beyond the Physical????? =)It's a metaphysical book for goshsakes! lolNamastePottsie
DubiousChrisJ
Pottsie
DubiousChrisJ <digitalp...@gmail.com> wrote:
The book addressed the metaphysical aspects, but it was balanced out by the physical aspects. Organizations was a big theme in the book, as when he discusses motorcycle repair. He is studying the classical qualities of the bike, how the parts fit together, and how his own quality of process contributes to the quality of composition of the repair.
(Pottsie)Yep, I remember. However, one of the problems that Phaedrus, in his pre-electric days faced, was that "Quality" is NOT simply a matter of physics. He went bonkers trying to separate the two.It is the same problem that atheists face. They attempt to separate Mental/Spiritual from the Physical....which can't be done. The only reason IMHO that THEY don't go bonkers is that they DENY the existence of the Mental or Spiritual and therefore don't have to deal with it. (The other way that it can be dealt with without any mental health side effects is to see Mind as Epiphenomena. The the Spiritual exists as a RESULT of the Physical, and no longer poses a problem either.NamastePottsie
A.
DubiousChrisJ wrote:
> I've been reading everyone with rapt attention, but I have to say, I'm
> beginning to think I am one of the few literalists on the forum. The concept
> of quality was taken far into the realm of metaphysics.
> I posed a question on the Word Use thread which was left unanswered. A.
> posited that it was impossible to paint a canvas primary red. I said it was
> easy; primary red is determined by chromacity, and using a pigment with a
> chroma of 255,0,0 tells me I am using Primary red. I understand that viewers
> may subjectively see different shades, but I maintain that the ones who have
> no degree of color blindness are all going to recognize the shade they see
> as primary red.
I'm pretty sure I did respond. Perhaps not directly.
Yes - they'll "see" primary red - if they are PHYSICISTS who have been
told the chromacity. Or artists who buy into the pigment-naming
process (which is quite, quite new - most major artists of the past
ground their own pigments, they had (each of them) their own view on
which red was primary red.
So yeah - go ahead and eliminate thousands of "primary reds" from past
paintings in one fell swoop with this "literalist" viewpoint.
I won't buy into it.
Like every other "art term" the term "primary red" is used inside and
outside of art (and physics). Are you seriously suggesting that every
single paint manufacturer has identical "primary reds" that would
withstand scrutiny from physicists? I think not. Different
manufacturers (for example) use different ratios of oil to pigment.
But that's just a minor problem compared to all the other problems
raised by your "literalist" view of "primary red."
For example, what does it mean to "see"? Can I see a color without
thinking? If I"m not thinking, do I see it? Have you ever seen a
color and thought only about the color? What kind of thinking was
that? Was that the kind of thinking you do when you view art?
I can't keep my thoughts from getting involved. I'm not speaking even
of perception - although, obviously, if I perceived a certain "primary
red" object (wielded by physicists after employing your standard of
"primary red') - and I was NOT thinking (not aware, not processing, not
locating in my mind a concept or label for the object, not noticing) -
you could claim I'd seen it - but I wouldn't. Seeing something that
leaves no trace of anything in my conscious mind is not the kind of
seeing I'm speaking of. That would be "beaming light at me," and you
would have no idea if I'd "seen" anything.
Magicians play off this trick all the time.
Second, there's a bunch of questions relating to word choice. Is
"primary red" the same thing as "faluzamieu" - as the same color is
called in another language. How would you know? In English, the term
"primary" has many different meanings. Artists use the term in a
variety of ways. Anyone at all can use the term and say their thing is
primary red - there are no laws:
http://www.actionenvelope.com/ae/control/category/~category_id=7041/~pcategory=7020/~mcategory=7005
Now, I'm sure you are going to insist it's the physicists and their
equipment who get to decide what is primary red - and I'm not going to
agree with you. You will still be in the same realm you were in -
which is to say, out there with your label attempting to find a group
(this time, physicists, apparently) to agree that this is the *real*
"primary red."
http://www.bizchair.com/primaries-red-bbb.html
Is that the right red?
BTW, I find it odd that you'd claim that painters have "primary red"
about them - do you mean cadmium red?
>
> While the perception of color may be subjective, color itself is not.
And what relationship does color "itself" have to art? Or, even
further - to modern painting?
Lots of relationships - but you seem to want to avoid starting with the
prominent ones - instead you want to invoke something about the physics
of light. Sigh.
It is
> a measure of the varying wavelength of light reflected off an object. You
> can't argue that subjectively .
No - but I can refuse, subjectively, to have those measurements enter
into ANY DEFINITION OF ART.
Which was what the thread was about - NOT about the wavelength or other
properties of any kind of light. I understand perfectly well what
Physics is, Chris.
Let's get back to art. Can you?
768 Mhz is ever anything but .768 Mhz. The
> romantic quality of the color of an object may be that primary red reminds
> us of passion, or anger, and we find it appealing, but the classic quality
> is still going to consist of the canvas, gesso, framing, stroke style, and
> 255.0.0 chroma pigment.
Excuse me. But when ANY red paint is placed on a canvas, the canvas's
texture and color influence that paint. And you can't get around that.
Can you give an example of pure color (and it must be pure color - I
don't want laser beams, just color) being used in an artistic
application? I think not. The color has to be present in something
(like a paint).
Once you add ANY medium to that pigment, and if you show the painting
under various lighting, and if the canvas has ANY texture, the light on
that paint will refract to your eye differently.
Art is NOT about physics - and I don't think it's useful to ask
questions like "If red pigment fell from the sky in a forest, would it
be red pigment?"
BTW, I'd love to know which brand paint you're speaking of that uses
255.0.0 pigment - and what that pigment is made of. Certainly, you
aren't going to find that in a Rembrandt - or in a Picasso.
Let's talk art. The "essence" of any artwork is not the wavelength of
the light in the initial pigment used in the medium. So - how would
you (ever) get to notions of "quality" of art - from where you are,
with your alleged "primary red" pigment?
To me, the term "primary" means many, many things (not just physics) -
and to invoke the term means a long host of associations. That's what
makes it the domain of art.
And, as anyone should know, even in the physics lab, the perception of
red light varies dramatically from person to person - especially if
each person has (just before viewing) done different things with their
eyes (closed them, looked at some other color, etc). There's human
variation in rods and cones, as well.
Here's a paint supplier's "primary red" (note that it's labelled
magenta):
I think the light cadmium red is much closer to my own view of what
primary red is (in the sense that I use the term inside myself).
Here's a painter's page that shows how the same tube of paint looks
depending on how much is applied to the canvas (on WHITE canvas - raw
canvas would yield a different result, a wood panel would yield yet
another)
http://www.lawrence.co.uk/brochure/pdfs07/05.pdf
These are all basics of painting - the physics, the pigment, the way
it's mixed, how it's applied, where it's applied - and therefore, it's
all pertinent to art. However, I can't think of any one worth reading
in aesthetics (or taking to) who would begin or end a discussion of art
with purely technical and technique-oriented concepts.
Anyway, look down the palette at that last link until you see the
brush-on of the "Primary Red" - not what we usually think of as primary
red, right?
By we, I mean most people raised with crayons in the United States.
And certainly not the "red" favored by modern painters as "the red"
they consider primary.
A number of artists have addressed "your" concern with what's primary.
Their interests in doing so are somewhat differently - radically
different in some ways - from what the physicists do when they choose a
particular wavelength to label. Bauer for example, decided to work
with the notion of primary color here:
http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?object_id=79825
The idea that "red" would be next to white in this way has a resut,
doesn't it? Let's just suppose the red in the picture is the right
wavelength for you.
Is there primary red in the picture? What's it like with so little of
it?
Following your notion that "any tube of paint with pigment 255.0.0 in
it" produces "primary red," what do you make of this:
http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?object_id=78723
He used but one pigment in that painting. Which part of the painting
is now primary red?
And, to me, the Reinhardt painting, while fabulous, just doesn't define
primary red. I will never be able to "see primary red" in my mind
(which is where I do my seeing) except via:
http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?object_id=79002
I find that all other "primary reds" end up judged by me in
relationship to that red - and I'm not alone - that red is in this
painting, which is Rothko's riff on primary red:
http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?object_id=80265
The word "primary" has many meanings. Physics may have misappropriated
it, actually (one would think that there's no way for visible light to
exist at all without all the colors in it - they don't mean 'primary'
in its usual sense). The words "cardinal" and "primary" are similar in
their meanings - and yet, "cardinal red" is a different set of reds.
Most of the time, when we think of or view red, it is in relationship
to other colors, as well (all the colors are in this painting):
http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?object_id=78970
Anyone who could point to the part of THAT painting that's "primary
red" would win a prize from me - although I don't know how we'd verify
their answer. Would it be the place where the most 255.0.0 pigment was
smeared? Why? Wouldn't it be anywhere that the 255.0.0 was smeared -
even it it no longer "looked" red to us?
Or is it important that the thing look and feel primary red, as well?
(You know my answer).
A.
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?object_id=78682
- to see how different Mondrian's red looks when it is next to lots of
yellow...
>
A.
DubiousChrisJ wrote:
> The book addressed the metaphysical aspects, but it was balanced out by the
> physical aspects.
According to you, anyway.
Organizations was a big theme in the book, as when he
> discusses motorcycle repair. He is studying the classical qualities of the
> bike,
however does the word "classical" get attached to any kind of bike?
>how the parts fit together, and how his own quality of process
> contributes to the quality of composition of the repair.
Quality of process? You can't get any more vague than that. A repair
does have composition, it's true. But it isn't the same use of the
word "composition" as in "essay" or "art" - in fact, you almost sound
as if you are trying to swim around the various terms by emptying them
of content in between phrases.
A.
>
> On 12/11/06, Pottsie <potts...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > *DubiousChrisJ <digitalp...@gmail.com>* wrote:
> >
> > I've been reading everyone with rapt attention, but I have to say, I'm
> > beginning to think I am one of the few literalists on the forum. The concept
> > of quality was taken far into the realm of metaphysics.
> >
> >
> > I posed a question on the Word Use thread which was left unanswered. A.
> > posited that it was impossible to paint a canvas primary red.
> >
> > (Pottsie)
> > But you started a new thread called "Quality" using Pirsig, Phaedrus and
> > ZAMM as a lead in. How can one discuss the word "Quality" using "Zen and the
> > Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and NOT go beyond the Physical????? =)
> >
> > It's a metaphysical book for goshsakes! lol
> >
> > Namaste
> >
> > Pottsie
> >
> >
> >
> > "The poets are mysteriously silent on the subject of
> > cheese." - G. K. Chesterton
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Any questions? Get answers on any topic at Yahoo! Answers<http://answers.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTEwOARfcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx>.
> > Try it now.
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> http://dubiousprofundity.com
> Dubious Wisdom for Dubious Times - Check it out!
>
> ------=_Part_162838_20564461.1165859553828
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
> X-Google-AttachSize: 3185
>
> The book addressed the metaphysical aspects, but it was balanced out by the physical aspects. Organizations was a big theme in the book, as when he discusses motorcycle repair. He is studying the classical qualities of the bike, how the parts fit together, and how his own quality of process contributes to the quality of composition of the repair.
> <br><br>
> <div><span class="gmail_quote">On 12/11/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Pottsie</b> <<a href="mailto:potts...@yahoo.com">potts...@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:</span>
> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><span class="q"><br><br><b><i>DubiousChrisJ <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:digitalp...@gmail.com" target="_blank">
> digitalp...@gmail.com</a>></i></b> wrote: </span>
> <blockquote style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><span class="q">
> <div>I've been reading everyone with rapt attention, but I have to say, I'm beginning to think I am one of the few literalists on the forum. The concept of quality was taken far into the realm of metaphysics. </div>
> <div> </div>
> <div> </div>
> <div>I posed a question on the Word Use thread which was left unanswered. A. posited that it was impossible to paint a canvas primary red. </div>
> <div> </div></span>
> <div>
> <div>(Pottsie)</div>
> <div> But you started a new thread called "Quality" using Pirsig, Phaedrus and ZAMM as a lead in. How can one discuss the word "Quality" using "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and NOT go beyond the Physical????? =)
> </div>
> <div> </div>
> <div>It's a metaphysical book for goshsakes! lol</div>
> <div> </div>
> <div>Namaste</div><span class="sg">
> <div> </div>
> <div>Pottsie</div></span></div></blockquote><span class="q"><br><br>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div>
> <div><font color="#000000">
> <div><font color="#00407f"><font color="#000000"><font color="#000000"><font color="#000000"><font color="#000000" size="2">"The poets are mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese." - G. K. Chesterton<font color="#000000">
> </font></font></font></font></font></font></div></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
> </div></div></div></div></div>
> <div></div></div></div></div></span>
> <p>
> <hr size="1">
> <span class="q">Any questions? Get answers on any topic at <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://answers.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTEwOARfcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx" target="_blank">
> Yahoo! Answers</a>. Try it now.<br><p></p></p></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="http://dubiousprofundity.com">http://dubiousprofundity.com</a><br>Dubious Wisdom for Dubious Times - Check it out!
>
> ------=_Part_162838_20564461.1165859553828--
A.
A.
of color is not the same as the perception of color:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00871.htm
Here's a preview:
"The first thing to realize is that the number of "primary" colors
depends
on the type of creature that is doing the looking. Normal cones in the
human eye sense light in broad color bands in the red, green and
blue-violet
regions of the spectrum. ***These bands overlap a great deal.***
"Thus, for humans, mixing various amounts of three colors of light
(red,
green and blue) will produce all colors that can be perceived. That is
for
an additive source like a computer monitor or TV screen that produces
light."
Those are his scary quotes in the first sentence - NOT mine.
And, on the question of whether physics can say anything about
*primary* colors (or whether the term is apt, at all):
http://homepage.mac.com/dtrapp/physics.f/ColorVision.html
Pay especial attention to what that guy says about how color is
perceived differently based on media.
A.
DubiousChrisJ
DubiousChrisJ wrote:
> I've been reading everyone with rapt attention, but I have to say, I'm
> beginning to think I am one of the few literalists on the forum. The concept
> of quality was taken far into the realm of metaphysics.
> I posed a question on the Word Use thread which was left unanswered. A.
> posited that it was impossible to paint a canvas primary red. I said it was
> easy; primary red is determined by chromacity, and using a pigment with a
> chroma of 255,0,0 tells me I am using Primary red. I understand that viewers
> may subjectively see different shades, but I maintain that the ones who have
> no degree of color blindness are all going to recognize the shade they see
> as primary red.
I'm pretty sure I did respond. Perhaps not directly.
Yes - they'll "see" primary red - if they are PHYSICISTS who have been
told the chromacity. Or artists who buy into the pigment-naming
process (which is quite, quite new - most major artists of the past
ground their own pigments, they had (each of them) their own view on
which red was primary red.
So yeah - go ahead and eliminate thousands of "primary reds" from past
paintings in one fell swoop with this "literalist" viewpoint.
I won't buy into it.
I didn't eliminate anything. You said it was impossible to delineate a primary red. I said you are wrong, and I am certainly capable, and showed how. I'll accept that all of those other interpretations are valid to the subjective sense of each artist. In doing so, I prove that it certainly is possible, both from the perspective of the literalist, who can paint a pure lightwave frequency pigment of 255.0.0 and of every subjective artist who has purported to paint primary red in his or her own way.
Now, I'm sure you are going to insist it's the physicists and their
agree with you. You will still be in the same realm you were in -
which is to say, out there with your label attempting to find a group
(this time, physicists, apparently) to agree that this is the *real*
"primary red."
I don't have to insist anything. Scientists study light and color. Hell, you rely on the work of one scientist to try and expound upon the quandary of color perception. Do you pick and choose which science suits you? You must be a creationist.
BTW, I find it odd that you'd claim that painters have "primary red"
about them - do you mean cadmium red?
I could use Cadmium Red if I was working in acrylics or oils...but if I was working in Tempera, or tile mosaic, I might very well have some primary red. Or pastels, for that matter, or crayons, or Krylon.
>
> While the perception of color may be subjective, color itself is not.
And what relationship does color "itself" have to art? Or, even
further - to modern painting?
Lots of relationships - but you seem to want to avoid starting with the
prominent ones - instead you want to invoke something about the physics
of light. Sigh.
Poor thing. It's so wearying to talk to those not at repose in the same lofty towers of thought. You should lie down and rest.
It is
> a measure of the varying wavelength of light reflected off an object. You
> can't argue that subjectively .
No - but I can refuse, subjectively, to have those measurements enter
into ANY DEFINITION OF ART.
Which was what the thread was about - NOT about the wavelength or other
properties of any kind of light. I understand perfectly well what
Physics is, Chris.
Let's get back to art. Can you?
Of course I can. Physics is the flip side of art...the expression of comprehension and observation through calculation, and ordered communication. They truly go hand in hand,
768 Mhz is ever anything but .768 Mhz. The
> romantic quality of the color of an object may be that primary red reminds
> us of passion, or anger, and we find it appealing, but the classic quality
> is still going to consist of the canvas, gesso, framing, stroke style, and
> 255.0.0 chroma pigment.
Excuse me. But when ANY red paint is placed on a canvas, the canvas's
texture and color influence that paint. And you can't get around that.
You're excused. Gastric discomfort?
Enough coats, and all influence of the canvas fades away. And you can't get around that.
Can you give an example of pure color (and it must be pure color - I
don't want laser beams, just color) being used in an artistic
application? I think not. The color has to be present in something
(like a paint).
DubiousChrisJ
DubiousChrisJ wrote:
> The book addressed the metaphysical aspects, but it was balanced out by the
> physical aspects.
According to you, anyway.
According to the book, dear. He spent equal time discussing both aspects. You should read it before you respond about it.
Organizations was a big theme in the book, as when he
> discusses motorcycle repair. He is studying the classical qualities of the
> bike,
however does the word "classical" get attached to any kind of bike?
When it is referring to one of the two parts of the defined aspects of quality defined above. Do try to keep up with the conversation.
>how the parts fit together, and how his own quality of process
> contributes to the quality of composition of the repair.
Quality of process? You can't get any more vague than that. A repair
does have composition, it's true. But it isn't the same use of the
word "composition" as in "essay" or "art" - in fact, you almost sound
as if you are trying to swim around the various terms by emptying them
of content in between phrases.
Yes, you're absolutely right. The quality of a process is certainly a far vaguer concept than say...what makes good modern art. (Insert Atalantean sigh here).
A process can be efficient, and have a certain sense of aesthetic order and flow, which gives it both sides of the measure of quality above. In the book, the professor lays out all of his tools in order, removes parts from the bike in order, lays them out in careful patterns, and labels them. Then, he reassembles them in the exact order of steps which he used to reassemble them. Simple, neat, ordered. It is efficient, and has the pattern and grace of performance art, an industrial modern dance. I imagine that if it were perfectly timed and honed into a carefully styled repetitive motion, 'Repair of the Motorcycle' could very well be a scene in Cirque du Soleil.
A.
DubiousChrisJ wrote:
> On 12/11/06, A. <atalanta....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > DubiousChrisJ wrote:
> > > The book addressed the metaphysical aspects, but it was balanced out by
> > the
> > > physical aspects.
> >
> > According to you, anyway.
>
>
> According to the book, dear. He spent equal time discussing both aspects.
> You should read it before you respond about it.
You're being effin patronizing because I'm about the only person who
will respond to you at length.
It's possible I read it long before you did - and at any rate, I think
it's mainly suitable at this point to assign to college undergraduates
- surely you've advanced somehow past Pirsig????
Who was the first to note, with humor, the lack of originality in his
ideas.
And as to Zen - there are huge compendiums of further work on quality,
which both you and Bob P. should read (except he's read more of it
since he wrote Motorcycle than you have - although, have you ever
really looked at where his Motorcycle ideas lead him? Where he went,
intellectually, since then?)
I thought not, dear.
>
> Organizations was a big theme in the book, as when he
> > > discusses motorcycle repair. He is studying the classical qualities of
> > the
> > > bike,
> >
> > however does the word "classical" get attached to any kind of bike?
>
>
> When it is referring to one of the two parts of the defined aspects of
> quality defined above. Do try to keep up with the conversation.
Do you do this often? Anyone know? Does Chris pull this type of
thing out rather frequently?
>
> >how the parts fit together, and how his own quality of process
> > > contributes to the quality of composition of the repair.
> >
> > Quality of process? You can't get any more vague than that. A repair
> > does have composition, it's true. But it isn't the same use of the
> > word "composition" as in "essay" or "art" - in fact, you almost sound
> > as if you are trying to swim around the various terms by emptying them
> > of content in between phrases.
>
>
> Yes, you're absolutely right. The quality of a process is certainly a far
> vaguer concept than say...what makes good modern art. (Insert Atalantean
> sigh here).
You really have no clue how to use language.
>
> A process can be efficient,
A process can be anything at all, dood. So yeah, it can be efficient
or filled with green cheese.
You still have "subjective" and "filled with green cheese" totally
confused in your fluffy widdle head.
and have a certain sense of aesthetic order and
> flow, which gives it both sides of the measure of quality above. In the
> book, the professor lays out all of his tools in order, removes parts from
> the bike in order, lays them out in careful patterns, and labels them.
Yes, and?
That's a good way to fix a motorcycle, is it not?
How is this a revelation to you? Why is it a revelation?
I think the answer is fairly obvious.
Then,
> he reassembles them in the exact order of steps which he used to reassemble
> them. Simple, neat, ordered. It is efficient, and has the pattern and grace
> of performance art, an industrial modern dance. I imagine that if it were
> perfectly timed and honed into a carefully styled repetitive motion, 'Repair
> of the Motorcycle' could very well be a scene in Cirque du Soleil.
So?
What does this have to do with quality/Quality?
Simple. Neat. Ordered. If that's your aesthetic, dood, fine.
To me, it's just more evidence for why I'd never look to anyone else
for standards in art.
Motorcycle repair, which we love to do ourselves - there's nothing as
beautiful, really as a working engine, and the puzzle of why it's not
working is always soluble - ALWAYS - if one takes the time (and
material) to do so.
Almost nothing else in life is like a machine. Ah, machines. Gotta
love 'em.
But you missed Pirsig's entire point if you think "motorcycle repair"
is the subject of the book - or the *basis of his aesthetics." He
enters a zen state when he repairs motorcycles - get it?
Do you know anything about Zen, btw?
What, usually, did Zenmasters do in more distant times, rather than
repair motorcycles?
Why did they do it? Did this comprise their entire aesthetic - or was
it something else entirely? Or is it something that's related by
complex confluences of events to aesthetics, ethics, practicality - and
the ineffable.
Can you think four ways at once, I wonder? (No point in going higher
in numbers of concepts with you, if two - romantic and classical - are
all you can do).
Don't for an instant think that Pirsig stops there though.
A.
> ------=_Part_172719_12628864.1165890551668
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
> X-Google-AttachSize: 10877
>
> <br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 12/11/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">A.</b> <<a href="mailto:atalanta....@gmail.com">atalanta....@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
> <br><br>DubiousChrisJ wrote:<br>> The book addressed the metaphysical aspects, but it was balanced out by the<br>> physical aspects.<br><br>According to you, anyway.</blockquote><div><br>According to the book, dear. He spent equal time discussing both aspects. You should read it before you respond about it.
> <br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Organizations was a big theme in the book, as when he<br>> discusses motorcycle repair. He is studying the classical qualities of the
> <br>> bike,<br><br>however does the word "classical" get attached to any kind of bike?</blockquote><div><br>When it is referring to one of the two parts of the defined aspects of quality defined above. Do try to keep up with the conversation.
> <br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">>how the parts fit together, and how his own quality of process<br>> contributes to the quality of composition of the repair.
> <br><br>Quality of process? You can't get any more vague than that. A repair<br>does have composition, it's true. But it isn't the same use of the<br>word "composition" as in "essay" or "art" - in fact, you almost sound
> <br>as if you are trying to swim around the various terms by emptying them<br>of content in between phrases.</blockquote><div><br>Yes, you're absolutely right. The quality of a process is certainly a far vaguer concept than say...what makes good modern art. (Insert Atalantean sigh here).
> <br><br>A process can be efficient, and have a certain sense of aesthetic order and flow, which gives it both sides of the measure of quality above. In the book, the professor lays out all of his tools in order, removes parts from the bike in order, lays them out in careful patterns, and labels them. Then, he reassembles them in the exact order of steps which he used to reassemble them. Simple, neat, ordered. It is efficient, and has the pattern and grace of performance art, an industrial modern dance. I imagine that if it were perfectly timed and honed into a carefully styled repetitive motion, 'Repair of the Motorcycle' could very well be a scene in Cirque du Soleil.
> <br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">A.<br><br><br>><br>> On 12/11/06, Pottsie <<a href="mailto:potts...@yahoo.com">
> potts...@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > *DubiousChrisJ <<a href="mailto:digitalp...@gmail.com">digitalp...@gmail.com</a>>* wrote:<br>> ><br>> > I've been reading everyone with rapt attention, but I have to say, I'm
> <br>> > beginning to think I am one of the few literalists on the forum. The concept<br>> > of quality was taken far into the realm of metaphysics.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > I posed a question on the Word Use thread which was left unanswered. A.
> <br>> > posited that it was impossible to paint a canvas primary red.<br>> ><br>> > (Pottsie)<br>> > But you started a new thread called "Quality" using Pirsig, Phaedrus and<br>> > ZAMM as a lead in. How can one discuss the word "Quality" using "Zen and the
> <br>> > Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and NOT go beyond the Physical????? =)<br>> ><br>> > It's a metaphysical book for goshsakes! lol<br>> ><br>> > Namaste<br>> ><br>> > Pottsie
> <br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > "The poets are mysteriously silent on the subject of<br>> > cheese." - G. K. Chesterton<br>> ><br>> > ------------------------------
> <br>> > Any questions? Get answers on any topic at Yahoo! Answers<<a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTEwOARfcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx">http://answers.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTEwOARfcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx
> </a>>.<br>> > Try it now.<br>> > ><br>> ><br>><br>><br>> --<br>> <a href="http://dubiousprofundity.com">http://dubiousprofundity.com</a><br>> Dubious Wisdom for Dubious Times - Check it out!
> <br>><br>> ------=_Part_162838_20564461.1165859553828<br>> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1<br>> X-Google-AttachSize: 3185<br>><br>> The book addressed the metaphysical aspects, but it was balanced out by the physical aspects. Organizations was a big theme in the book, as when he discusses motorcycle repair. He is studying the classical qualities of the bike, how the parts fit together, and how his own quality of process contributes to the quality of composition of the repair.
> <br>> <br><br><br>> <div><span class="gmail_quote">On 12/11/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Pottsie</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:<a href="mailto:potts...@yahoo.com">
> potts...@yahoo.com</a>"><a href="mailto:potts...@yahoo.com">potts...@yahoo.com</a></a>&gt; wrote:</span><br>> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px
> 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><span class="q"><br><br><b><i>DubiousChrisJ &lt;<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:
> <a href="mailto:digitalp...@gmail.com">digitalp...@gmail.com</a>" target="_blank"><br>> <a href="mailto:digitalp...@gmail.com">digitalp...@gmail.com</a></a>&gt;</i></b> wrote: </span>
> <br>> <blockquote style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><span class="q"><br>> <div>I've been reading everyone with rapt attention, but I have to say, I'm beginning to think I am one of the few literalists on the forum. The concept of quality was taken far into the realm of metaphysics. </div>
> <br>> <div>&nbsp;</div><br>> <div>&nbsp;</div><br>> <div>I posed a question on the Word Use thread which was left unanswered. A. posited that it was impossible to paint a canvas primary red. </div>
> <br>> <div>&nbsp;</div></span><br>> <div><br>> <div>(Pottsie)</div><br>> <div>&nbsp;But you started a new thread called &quot;Quality&quot; using Pirsig, Phaedrus and ZAMM as a lead in. How can one discuss the word &quot;Quality&quot; using &quot;Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance&quot; and NOT go beyond the Physical?????&nbsp; =)
> <br>> </div><br>> <div>&nbsp;</div><br>> <div>It's a metaphysical book for goshsakes!&nbsp; lol</div><br>> <div>&nbsp;</div><br>> <div>Namaste</div><span class="sg">
> <br>> <div>&nbsp;</div><br>> <div>Pottsie</div></span></div></blockquote><span class="q"><br><br><br>> <div><br>> <div><br>
> > <div><br>> <div><br>> <div><br>> <div><br>> <div><br>> <div><br>> <div><br>> <div><br>> <div><br>> <div><br>> <div><br>> <div>
> <br>> <div><br>> <div><br>> <div><br>> <div><br>> <div><br>> <div><br>> <div><br>> <div><br>> <div><br>> <div><br>> <div><br>
> > <div><br>> <div><br>> <div><br>> <div><br>> <div><br>> <div><br>> <div><br>> <div><br>> <div><br>> <div><br>> <div><font color="#000000">
> <br>> <div><font color="#00407f"><font color="#000000"><font color="#000000"><font color="#000000"><font color="#000000" size="2">&quot;The poets are mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese.&quot; - G. K. Chesterton<font color="#000000">
> <br>> </font></font></font></font></font></font></div></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
> <br>> </div></div></div></div></div><br>> <div></div></div></div></div></span><br>> <p><br>> <hr size="1"><br>> <span class="q">Any questions? Get answers on any topic at <a onclick="return
> top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="<a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTEwOARfcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx">http://answers.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTEwOARfcwMzOTY1NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx
> </a>" target="_blank"><br>> Yahoo! Answers</a>. Try it now.<br><p></p></p></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="
> <a href="http://dubiousprofundity.com">http://dubiousprofundity.com</a>"><a href="http://dubiousprofundity.com">http://dubiousprofundity.com</a></a><br>Dubious Wisdom for Dubious Times - Check it out!<br>
> ><br>> ------=_Part_162838_20564461.1165859553828--<br><br><br><br><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="http://dubiousprofundity.com">http://dubiousprofundity.com</a><br>Dubious Wisdom for Dubious Times - Check it out!
>
> ------=_Part_172719_12628864.1165890551668--
DubiousChrisJ
DubiousChrisJ wrote:
> On 12/11/06, A. < atalanta....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > DubiousChrisJ wrote:
> > > The book addressed the metaphysical aspects, but it was balanced out by
> > the
> > > physical aspects.
> >
> > According to you, anyway.
>
>
> According to the book, dear. He spent equal time discussing both aspects.
> You should read it before you respond about it.
You're being effin patronizing because I'm about the only person who
will respond to you at length.
I'm being effin patronizing because you're being effin patronizing. You really haven't figured out this whole quid pro quo thing, have you? Making ridiculous statements like "According to you, anyways..." is purely argumentative, and serves no purpose other than to inflame. Congratulations, flame on.
The POINT was, he addressed both the physical and metaphysical aspects of quality in his book. Which is what I said. Which is what, by implication, you were suggesting was a subjective interpretation. Ridiculous.
It's possible I read it long before you did - and at any rate, I think
it's mainly suitable at this point to assign to college undergraduates
- surely you've advanced somehow past Pirsig????
Is there a "past Pirsig"? According to your subjective interpretation of everything, Pirsig could be my God. At any rate, Pirsig moved past ZATAOMM, and wrote Lila, which prompted a whole study sphere on the Metaphysics of Quality. Google that phrase, and you can read all about it.
Who was the first to note, with humor, the lack of originality in his
ideas.
And as to Zen - there are huge compendiums of further work on quality,
which both you and Bob P. should read (except he's read more of it
since he wrote Motorcycle than you have - although, have you ever
really looked at where his Motorcycle ideas lead him? Where he went,
intellectually, since then?)
I thought not, dear.
Yes, I have, dear. And noted it in the sentence prior to this one. Your correct assumption ratio is riding somewhere around zero percent right now. You should work on that.
>
> Organizations was a big theme in the book, as when he
> > > discusses motorcycle repair. He is studying the classical qualities of
> > the
> > > bike,
> >
> > however does the word "classical" get attached to any kind of bike?
>
>
> When it is referring to one of the two parts of the defined aspects of
> quality defined above. Do try to keep up with the conversation.
Do you do this often? Anyone know? Does Chris pull this type of
thing out rather frequently?
By "this thing", do you mean correcting ridiculous statements like "however does the word classical get attached to any kind of bike?" Well, only as often as people make them.
And I hope this wasn't an appeal to groupthink...why, that would be...dare I say...hypocritical.
>
> >how the parts fit together, and how his own quality of process
> > > contributes to the quality of composition of the repair.
> >
> > Quality of process? You can't get any more vague than that. A repair
> > does have composition, it's true. But it isn't the same use of the
> > word "composition" as in "essay" or "art" - in fact, you almost sound
> > as if you are trying to swim around the various terms by emptying them
> > of content in between phrases.
>
>
> Yes, you're absolutely right. The quality of a process is certainly a far
> vaguer concept than say...what makes good modern art. (Insert Atalantean
> sigh here).
You really have no clue how to use language.
Of course not. This whole concept of stringing words together in an attempt to convey meaning is simply beyond me.
>
> A process can be efficient,
A process can be anything at all, dood. So yeah, it can be efficient
or filled with green cheese.
You still have "subjective" and "filled with green cheese" totally
confused in your fluffy widdle head.
*laughing*
Now you're in the spirit of things! It's so much better when you just bring it out and lay it on the table instead of attempting to hide it behind purported academic superiority.
Are you arguing then that there's no such thing as a level of quality in a process? Or are you simply arguing because I'm being such a pompous little bastard who still gives it back to you just the way you give it, and doesn't simply lay down in awe saying "Oh, A, please, share your superior knowledge and understanding with me..."?
I make a statement, you dissect or dismiss it, I defend or support it. You ask a question, I answer it. You dismiss my answer, or ridicule it. I respond in kind. I don't know why you are acting surprised now. I already told you this was how it goes. Read through all the other conversations I have had on here in the last year and a half, and you will see that there are conversations where there is a polite exchange of ideas, and then there are conversations where someone begins with the patronization and condescension, and the conversation devolves.
and have a certain sense of aesthetic order and
> flow, which gives it both sides of the measure of quality above. In the
> book, the professor lays out all of his tools in order, removes parts from
> the bike in order, lays them out in careful patterns, and labels them.
Yes, and?
That's a good way to fix a motorcycle, is it not?
How is this a revelation to you? Why is it a revelation?
I think the answer is fairly obvious.
You make these assumptive statements alot. "I thought not. I think the answer is obvious. I think we already know." What surprises me is that you don't just state the answer, considering your leanings toward the pedantic.
Then,
> he reassembles them in the exact order of steps which he used to reassemble
> them. Simple, neat, ordered. It is efficient, and has the pattern and grace
> of performance art, an industrial modern dance. I imagine that if it were
> perfectly timed and honed into a carefully styled repetitive motion, 'Repair
> of the Motorcycle' could very well be a scene in Cirque du Soleil.
So?
What does this have to do with quality/Quality?
Simple. Neat. Ordered. If that's your aesthetic, dood, fine.
To me, it's just more evidence for why I'd never look to anyone else
for standards in art.
If you were hung up on the idea of quality in process, then you will not understand, and I sincerely doubt you have read the book recently enough to recall any of it. Pirsig discusses quality of process, in detail. Please read and review before you begin disparaging my discussion of the salient points of an author who is pertinent to the subject.
Motorcycle repair, which we love to do ourselves - there's nothing as
beautiful, really as a working engine, and the puzzle of why it's not
working is always soluble - ALWAYS - if one takes the time (and
material) to do so.
Almost nothing else in life is like a machine. Ah, machines. Gotta
love 'em.
But you missed Pirsig's entire point if you think "motorcycle repair"
is the subject of the book - or the *basis of his aesthetics." He
enters a zen state when he repairs motorcycles - get it?
You missed the point if you didn't pay attention to the details along the way.
Do you know anything about Zen, btw?
What, usually, did Zenmasters do in more distant times, rather than
repair motorcycles?
Do you really want me to go into the history of Zen here, or is this another "A is going to say something to make you think now. It's not really part of the conversation, more like a homework assignment."? I believe the latter. Thanks, Prof.
Zenmasters (a subjective descriptive if there ever was one. What comprises a Zenmaster?) did many things: meditated, made rock and sand gardens, practiced zen archery, engaged in a many things which were forms of moving meditation, much the way Pirsig does with motorcycle repair.
Why did they do it? Did this comprise their entire aesthetic - or was
it something else entirely? Or is it something that's related by
complex confluences of events to aesthetics, ethics, practicality - and
the ineffable.
Can you think four ways at once, I wonder? (No point in going higher
in numbers of concepts with you, if two - romantic and classical - are
all you can do).
Don't for an instant think that Pirsig stops there though.
> > top.js.OpenExtLink (window,event,this)" href="mailto: