/lit/ - Literature

No.

>>2851449

But not having a discussion about it has lower Quality than if we did have a discussion about it.

Don't listen to
>>2851449

Of course we *can* talk about it. We just did.

never read it. i think I get it.

Like the beauty on a face, quality isn't a biological constituent part, like a nose or a mouth. Nor is it a mechanical component of a motorbike. It's an emergent property, neither situated entirely in either thing.

As a result, we can create great art without defining and aiming for beauty.

We can't create beautiful intelligent people just by breaking the human genome down and ordering in which way we think best.

We can't develop comprehensive educational models for the development of society with rational technocratic theorising and its associated implementation.

In each of these examples, how much we know of the subject does not reflect the quality of our output, and may in fact be counterproductive.

In fact we could go as far to say that it just doesn't relate at all and that achieving our ambitions by design is entirely the wrong way to go about it because success, beauty and quality are not things produced in the conventional technocratic or progressive manner we have come to expect.

Instead we should look to the kind of rhetoric of Alan Watts and co to learn how to live satisfactory lives and solve our problems in all areas of work. Crucially, we should note that the key is it isn't an established solution but a general mode of operation whereby we simply enjoy ourselves and just play around in a manner that according to the conventional wisdom would seem like meaningless time wasting but in fact is an unstructured and unencumbered 'method' of problem solving.

It allows for the rapid but incidental, or oblique emergence of success that escapes path dependencies and counterproductivity.

So that we can look at the resulting motor vehicle that might look ugly but runs like a charm, a classroom that's highly unorthodox but gets results or, to go back to my initial example of beauty, an actress like KStew that looks stunning despite those dopey eyes.

>>2851462
!

>>2851522
>never read it. i think I get it.
>/lit/

>>2851647
How has read the book?

Another trip shitting up a thread.

>>2851522
You take too many words to say too little. Your post is certainly not quality. Minimalism is quality. You could be the next Malcolm Gladwell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

>>2851658
She's identified one of her works behind him. Don't trip.

>>2851665
This is a revelation.

>>2851661
>>2851673

Shut the fuck up.

>>2851684

But he's right. A post of High Quality says a lot using few words. A post of Low Quality says nothing in a lot of words.

But both are better than a post of No Quality, which is no post at all.

>>2851687
You have not proven that point.