Hullo Denis,
I liked your short essay.
"the Self is a pattern of value that is felt with as much force as the
desire for social recognition, hunger or gravity. Therefore, it makes no
sense to talk about the other patterns of value but ignore this one, only
because it's inconvenient... "
Right on target.
"The Self is therefore the patterned, static, known aspect of an
individual."
Not a bad definition. However in my view it neglects agency. Too static.
"We do not dare to insert freedom."
Yes. Yes. Come on...
"Quality is still undefinable, and the Universe non-mechanical by nature. It
still escapes the intellectual nets we're trying to wrap around it. Pirsig's
definition still stands : "We are determined when we follow SQ, and Free
when we follow DQ.""
Ummm. Sounds like the chatechism to me. Pirsig's first cut fails, in my
opinion, right in his prime example of the song on the radio. Presumedly on
first hearing it is DQ. Next time x% DQ and y% sq, third time ?DQ ?sq. It
really is a mess. And just by coincidence he chose a song on the radio. My
experience is that it is generally not the first hearing which is the
highest in quality for me, but perhaps the third to tenth hearings,
depending on the song. In other words the quality increases with
familiarity, then diminishes over time with subsequent hearings. It is
simply wrong in most cases to suggest that dynamic equals novel with music!
(Which is why many of our most revered classical pieces were not well
received on their first performance.)
I will go a step further. DQ is a myth. Quite commonly it is equated with
novelty, which is a nonsense. Pirsig is right to suggest that quality which
initially is dynamic can change over time to become static. This conforms
with his illustration that what was once for me a "good" song, I may no
longer want to hear, but would still recommend if you asked me if it is any
good. Quality evolves. (At least as seen from my 'self' perspective, which
at the moment is the only one I have.) But this is so far from the incisive
first cut he sought that it is laughable. DQ is many things, of different
kinds; not one thing as Pirsig would have us believe.
Artistic and moral quality evolve. Probably intellectual quality (truth)
also evolves. The lure of quality is the lure of the next stage of quality,
measured from where I already am. That is why poor Van Gogh sold only one
painting in his lifetime, and today multi millionaires with the artistic
sensibility of cleaning ladies (sorry, cleaning ladies, I know its insulting
to you) pay millions to own one. Sure, they are chasing the trappings of
power and fame, but they still think its an OK painting. Whereas before they
wouldn't. And each of us in our development moves through a sequence in
which what is valuable (dynamic) is just beyond what we currently have come
to value in a more static sense. Mostly these sequences of value follow
patterns that are fairly predictable, but sometimes not. Sometimes the
dynamic value comes from an unexpected quarter. Like the guy who sees his
hand with wonder and delight while recovering from his heart attack.
What I am currently interested in is how education is a process for
facilitating the appreciation of value. (I'm writing another long boring
essay which I may one day inflict on the forum.) Value is relative when it
is applied to the social and intellectual realms, and arguably not so in the
biological realm. And I still fail to grasp how value impinges on the
inorganic realm at all. I think it's just an imposition for the sake of
theoretical niceness.
John B
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:27 BST