what makes something of good or bad quality?

Originally posted by: karandel_2008

This is slightly an abstract question 😛:

First of all what is quality?
Then what makes something of good quality or bad quality?
Your expectations.

Regarding quality being relative: Is it possible to have a thing with absolute quality and thus no one can improve it further?
Yep. They say God broke the mold after he was done makin' me😛 He was so amazed at the result that he declared - this is it --- she is the perfection epitomized😉


An additional question is that: is truth or reality absolute or relative?
Truth is absolute whether one acknowledges it or not. There is no such thing as my truth or your truth. However, reality can be relative. $500 could be a huge amount in reality for a hobo or it could be really insignificant amount to a millionaire.

Thanks for sharing your views.
(some similar questions were explored in the book "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance")

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

Originally posted by: karandel_2008

This is slightly an abstract question 😛:

First of all what is quality?
Then what makes something of good quality or bad quality?

Quality basically relates to something of a certain standard. For commercial products it is necessary to use good materials to make it with good machines and good industrial and manufacturing expertise in order to get a good quality product. Experience is doing such works is useful advantange.

Applying this to other areas we can make relevant changes.

But if we speak of Arts etc then a lot depends on the artist.

Regarding quality being relative: Is it possible to have a thing with absolute quality and thus no one can improve it further?

Talking of a perfect product, yes it is possible but everything that is created has to surrender to time and for humans to death.

An additional question is that: is truth or reality absolute or relative?

Some speak of lower and higher truths but they also say that the absolute ultimate Truth is unchanging. eg. we see a stone and it is the relative truth for it does not last and it becomes of a victim of time and decay. It is said that our immortal spirit does not change and that is the absolute truth ( but not many have experienced it)

Thanks for sharing your views.
(some similar questions were explored in the book "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance")

Ah Zen philosophy of nothingness. nice. Basically it all boils down to self enquiry.

Originally posted by: karandel_2008

I think that it is a nice answer. To add more:

what makes our expectations? previous quality + random imagination?

our life style and upbringing. We judge good or bad quality depending upon what we can and can not afford and what we imbibe from our parents. Someone may hold really high expectations when it comes to education but they may not care much for clothes or oter materialistic manifestations od std of living - a trait which most of us imbibe from our parents.

Moreover, expectations may still have some objective and subjective elements. For example , a car can be of higher quality because of its higher horse power (objective criteria).

A car can also be presumed to be of higher quality because it is considered to be a luxury car. Objective criteria may come in play if one keeps the functionality based on their needs in mind. Subjective could be using a car to make a statement in life - to tell the world how successful I have become.

However its difficult to point out such criteria, for example, while differentiating between 2 songs.

Music is abstract. You can't be comparing abstract with tangible assets when talking about quality.

this is like making the expectations go out of roof, for us.😉

Yeah, that's more like MY "reality"😆


Oh and here I started to think on the line that truth and reality are the same things😛.

No, they are not the same.

Truth is a fact that has been verified. It is a fact that conforms to reality or actuality. Whereas reality is all of your experiences that determine how things appear to you.

People use these two words interchangeably but they are not the same. The definitions surely overlap here or there but they are as different as chalk and cheese. For example - someone's reality may be that they are prostitutes. The truth is that prostitution is not a dignified profession.So, for me, truth has an element of virtue in it whereas reality is more to do with actuality of the situation.

Should we say that if something (description, statement, ...) is "true" then it should exactly match the reality?

This "exact match" might be possible for objective truths. However for subjective things isn't truth still relative? Because there is always a possibility of improving that truth based on previous truth and our imagination.

Truth is always going to be the truth. You can't improvize your truth. Only reality gives you that liberty.

Thus, isn't the truth in the statement "song A is better than song B" more relative and subjective rather than being objective and absolute?

Again, that is NOT truth. That is comparison. Same song can evoke different reactions/emotions based on the timing when it was played. How do you justify that - subjectively or objectively? How can you be objective about abstract?


Will add more later ...

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

Darn it, Karan😡 The fact/truth is that I really need to be away from forums till the end of this month BUT the reality is that I am here posting rather than studying😡

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

Regarding quality being relative: Is it possible to have a thing with absolute quality and thus no one can improve it further?
Yep. They say God broke the mold after he was done makin' me😛 He was so amazed at the result that he declared - this is it --- she is the perfection epitomized😉

Originally posted by: karandel_2008

This is slightly an abstract question 😛:

First of all what is quality?

Quality is a characteristic.

Then what makes something of good quality or bad quality?

Individual perception.

Regarding quality being relative: Is it possible to have a thing with absolute quality and thus no one can improve it further?

In Advaita Vedanta the supreme being is the nirguna Brahman or without any attributes. In Vishishtadvaita Vedanta the supreme being is the saguna Brahman or with all positive attributes.

Metaphysically, I guess it is possible to have absolute (positive) quality. Although, I think the supreme being is either quality less or that it has absolute (infinite/every) quality that in the broader spectrum the dual qualities cancel each other out rendering a qualityless being.

An additional question is that: is truth or reality absolute or relative?

The truth is absolute yet relative. If you add two and two, you get four. That is an indisputable truth. Every time you have two and two you get four. However, you change the variables to two and three, you get five. Truth is the absolute factual governing principles, but the resulting truth will vary based on what variables you have on hand.

Reality is what we perceive the truth and the variables to be. If we perceive that we have two and three, thats our reality. If we perceive that two and three make four. Thats our reality. Its extremely variable to what an individual perceives and has no universality like truth.

Thanks for sharing your views.
(some similar questions were explored in the book "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance")

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Liar. God said that about Ajnu - not you. 😛

Oh man I can literally feel all those bricks being thrown my way.

Ok Ok, I retract. God did say that about you. Then he pondered. Man that RTH is such a defective piece, I don't think G-Unit can fix on her own. So he decided to make another perfect model, in form of my wifey - so that there could be someone to keep a closer eye on my defects. 😆