hello,
this is my first post to the group. i recently found out about this
listserv via pirsig's reference to the moq web site in the 25th
anniversery edition of zmm. it's a great idea and i've enjoyed the
posts i have read (without knowing the whole thread . . . btw, who was
the "celebrity"?)
i am currently writing a master's thesis at the university of oklahoma
about the influence of zmm on composition/rhetoric pedagogy and
practice.
during my multiple re-rereadings of zmm, i came up with a question about
pirsig's hierarchy of quality as it appears on p. 223 (bantam edition)
in the second metaphysical hierarchical chart.
the source of my dilemma is trying to fit the concepts of
romantic/classic understanding (that appear in the first hierarchy)
underneath the categories that appear in the book.
pirsig states (also on p. 223) that romantic quality is "the present,
the here and now" concerned with "instantaneous impressions" and classic
quality is "always concerned with more than just the present" involving
"multiple considerations that [extend] over a period of time." based on
this, i would assume that romantic understanding would fall under
romantic quality (a carpe diem attitude) and classic understanding would
be jointly connected to both subjective/objective reality.
my problem, though is associating an "understanding" with a
"preintellectual reality." the time lag that pirsig associates with
qualtiy, which separates the sense perception and the mental recognition
(p. 222), sounds like an a priori condition (p.224). if indeed this is
so, a preintellectual reality could not be recognized. the "gee, the
motorcycle is working now, everything is groovy" feeling would only be
recognizable as an intellectual reality, after the preintellectual
reality.
now, if what said above is "ture," then it would make sense to me to
subordinate both romantic and classic understandings beneath classic
reality directly under subjective reality and objective reality,
respectively (unless one accepts subjective reality = romantic
understanding, etc.).
boiling all of this down to the bone: does romantic (emotional) and
classic (intellectual) understanding (of the first chart) fit in the
second chart. I realize that as i ask this question, i am
supperimposing the two hierarchies, perhaps confusing them. am i
identifying a condition (the two "understandings") that exists only in
the realm of "Truth"-centered reality that does not exist in one that is
"Quality"-centered? i'm not entirely convinced that this is so.
after rereading my post, it sounds like i am "splitting hairs," but i
honestly can't figure this out. it is important because i want to
determine where certain "schools" of composition pedagogy fit within
pirsig's second metaphysical hierarchy. in addition, i want to make a
claim that he falls in a certain category, albeit in a "subsection"
which he shares with no one. this category or school is one that is
neither singularly subjective nor objective but evenly both.
is there something i'm missing?
any comments helping me understand this would be appreciated.
jamie
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:07 BST