Hi Denis, Glenn, and Victoria, (a welcome compatriot)
Good debate thus far. I think you summed it up beautifully, Glenn, when you
said "DQ is ascribed to all that is mysterious, and called an explanation."
I also strongly concur that it is a mistake to assume that "dynamic things
are necessarily perceived as having the most quality."
Victoria said "I can't imagine anything more depressing than defining my
Self as just "the patterned, static, known aspect of an individual". Isn't
DQ as much a part of us (albight an indefinable part) as the SPoV?"
Hear, hear.
I shall try to respond to a couple of points in your lengthy response,
Denis, which I enjoyed. I particularly would like to argue with one point
you made.
You said, "How can you make rational statements about the undefinable ?"
To me definition is a game which is unending. The 'meaning' of any word is
ultimately 'defined' within the context of the whole of the language from
which that word is taken. And languages constantly change. My personal
language constantly changes. My language is different to yours, and both are
changing. At the deepest level nothing is ever conclusively 'defined'. I
think Pirsig was hooked on a rather simplistic model of language and what it
can achieve in the "Church of Reason".
But Pirsig has had many attempts at defining quality, one of the best being
in Ch 20 of Zen, where he says, "I think metaphysics is good if it improves
everyday life; otherwise forget it ... This Copernican inversion of the
relationship of Quality to the objective world could sound mysterious if not
carefully explained, but he did not mean it to be mysterious. He simply
meant that at the cutting edge of time, before an object can be
distinguished, there must be a kind of nonintellectual awareness, which he
called awareness of Quality ... This preintellectual reality is what
Phaedrus felt he had properly identified as Quality." Near enough to a
definition for me.
I complain a lot about how Quality is reified and becomes almost meaningless
in Lila, but let's face it, he used the word 'quality' because it does mean
something. He didn't invent a word, or use 'x' throughout his books. When
the lady at his college asked if he was teaching 'quality' it meant
something. I suggest the whole idea that 'quality' can't be defined is a red
herring which assumes that every other term in metaphysics, or science, can
be defined, yet this is simply a nonsense. 'Definition' has a nice academic,
scientific ring to it. The reality is quite different, and quality is no
harder to define than almost any other high order term. In fact he simply
uses it for the paradigm term for all statements of value which are
incapable of being grasped in science, but which we all use and understand
tolerably well every day. Wilber explores this territory so much better, I
think.
You also mentioned the notion of the "horizon of expectation". It's a useful
term and concept. It ties in somewhat with my current endeavour to explore
how quality emerges, ever changing, as I change due to my absorption of
previous elements of quality. You talk about how "classical music endures,
and finds new fans in every generation." Yes, and yet each of us is drawn to
the quality to be found in classical music via different routes. My Father,
much to my surprise, became a great classical music fan in the last few
years of his life, after seemingly showing no interest in music previously.
What interests me is how each of us is lured by artistic quality, yet in
different ways and to different destinations.
I agree with you that young people are more often open to novelty than older
ones, but I never tried to argue that "quality increases with familiarity"
is a general rule, only that for me, and apparently for Glenn too, some
familiarity with music may well increase the experience of quality. I think
the same can apply to visual arts with depth, unlike the 'in your face'
superficiality and desire to grab attention that characterises much of what
unfortunately passes for art today. Young people, I suspect, are more likely
to be impressed by the surface of art. Maturity brings greater valuing of
depth.
I generally agree with the broad thrust of your extended argument about how
we are trained NOT to recognise quality. This is the sort of education I
abhor. Have you read Ken Wilber? He goes much deeper into this.
Your story about how Khalid's Oud playing was ignored by you at first
acquaintance, only to hit you with 'quality' a year later, is a nice parable
for the process we are exploring.
Re the comments of Squonk and Jeremy. What they fail to see is that the
quality they discern in their reading of Pirsig is valid for their level of
understanding, and what they regard as my apostacy is simply quality as I
discern it at my level of understanding. We cannot debate because our levels
do not match. They would probably be horrified to acknowledge that both
viewpoints are high quality, but viewed from different bases. They would
doubtless be annoyed if I was to suggest mine was a higher level, so of
course I won't...
This is geting too long again. Time for all good little INTPs to go to bed.
Regards,
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