Hello everyone
gmbbradford@netscape.net wrote:
>
> Platt and all:
>
> Here are my thoughts on Pirsig's letter to Bo.
>
> PLATT:
> For those who haven’t yet read Pirsig’s letter to Bodvar Skutvik
> now on MOQ.org, please do so. There you’ll find more challenging
> ideas in five or six paragraphs than in many books.
>
> Here’s a statement from Pirsig that I found especially provocative:
>
> PIRSIG:
> “The question, ‘How do you justify the statement that Quality
> equals reality?’ was the best one. The correct answer from the
> MOQ perspective is, ‘by the harmony it produces,’ but this answer
> is only for people who already understand the MOQ. Those who
> don’t can’t see the harmony and for them the answer is
> meaningless.”
>
> And later he elaborates on this:
>
> PIRSIG:
> ... we are seeing a kind of quality blindness that musicians call a
> "tin ear" of singers who keep sharping and flattening notes without
> knowing they are doing it. Many people just do not "see" quality at the
> same time they are obviously seeing it, in the same way that tin- eared
> people do not "hear" harmony at the same time they are obviously hearing
> it.
>
> I agree it's provocative, to say the least. He's saying certain
> people are incapable of seeing the harmony that quality produces, in much
> the same way tin eared people can't hear the harmony in music. These
> quality-blind people are, not coincidently, his critics. The charge of
> quality blindness is ridiculous in Struan's case. He's a jazz musician,
> for heaven's sake. But for Pirsig it's the easy way out - insult your
> critics instead of engaging them. Treat the dissenters as "enemies" and
> your disciples as "friends". Paint yourself as the besieged, misunderstood
> contrarian. It's sad, really. It makes me sad. Where is all the harmony in
> these attitudes?
Hi Glenn
No, he is not saying some people can't see the harmony; they don't see
it. Big difference. Now I am not a musician but I remember a discussion
some time back where Struan quite correctly insisted it is possible to
learn "perfect" tone by any musician who takes the time to do so. In a
very real sense, the Quality Pirsig is speaking of is a perfect tone and
like it or not we are not born in tune with its harmony. We learn as we
experience, setting up specific and not so specific preconditions as to
what it is we even become aware of. Yet it may well also be that certain
individuals are somehow more in tune with this harmony than others from
birth.
When I read the letter I immediately wrote Struan and told him the news.
I found much harmony in Pirsig sharing his thoughts with us -- Roger put
it that it is a feedback mechanism -- and while I have come to expect
certain reactions from those I have come to know here in the discussion
forum I am pleasantly surprised at Struan's response and found it very
thought provoking.
>
> If the only people who can truly "see" quality are those who understand
> and agree with MOQ, where does that leave the rest of us quality-blind
> folk? Does that mean only a handful of people can understand reality,
> despite the irony that MOQ says reality is right in front of your face?
> And how are these numbers an improvement over the handful of physicists
> who he claims understand reality in his SOM straw-world?
But if you understand the difference between a one dollar bill and a
five dollar bill (or substitute any monetary device you wish), you see
Quality. I am not certain of where you are taking your argument. There
are only a handful of people who really understand any field of study
you would care to choose. Does that also render them invalid?
>
> What really irks me is that he has taken a wonderful concept, quality, a
> thing I deeply cherish, and he's mixed it all up with mysticism, dualism,
> and teleological explanations in such a way that each is tied inexorably.
> In order to swallow MOQ these all have to go down.
Hmmm. No one has force fed me and I detest swallowing those big pills
anyhow.
>
> I've had a sense for some time that quality was initially a subject he
> intended to use as a hook to attract people into his corner (because,
> after all, who is against quality?), and then once he had them
> there, to mix in this other stuff and make it all sound reasonable and
> consistent with quality. This sense was strengthened when I read his reply
> to one of the email questions at the end of the 25 Anniversary edition of
> ZMM, where he was asked to comment on the possible political reactions to
> the narrator's claim that "we need a return to individual integrity,
> self-reliance and old-fashioned gumption", all obviously high-quality
> attributes. His reply, in part, was:
>
> PIRSIG:
> Nobody takes the stump to shout "What we need is more dull conformity!"
> The narrator is coming up with a cliche here because the narrator is
> something of a politician himself. He is speechifying a platitude to
> win general approval of the audience.
>
> If someone still balks at his ideas after reading his books, RPM could
> shame him with, "Well you don't get quality then, do you?" See how this
> works?
No I do not see it at all. I am at a handicap as my edition of ZMM is
somewhat old and faded and contains no 25th anniversary notes. Actually
it seems to me that Robert Pirsig, having written best selling two
books, has no reason whatsoever to answer objections to his ideas. The
fact that he did makes me feel as if some of our efforts here have been
worthwhile and we really owe him a thank you.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:50 BST