From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Nov 01 2003 - 12:59:45 GMT
Hi David H,
> > Platt is curious:
> > What's the difference between real Quality and romantic Quality?
David H,
> I would say that Quality is that which is immediately experienced, as in
> Lila the scientist who sits on the hot stove will be quick to jump off
> and after this experience he then creates ideas such as stove and
> hotness, and oaths to describe his situation. Romantic Quality on the
> other hand as described in ZMM is the surface beauty of things which can
> be partnered together with Classical Quality.
I think it's clear that Pirsig rejected his Classic/Romantic division
as described in ZMM and also his negative opinion of "style." First,
his rejection: In Lila, Chp. 9:
"Phaedrus finally abandoned this classic-romantic split as a choice for
the primary division of Quality."
Secondly, his positive embrace of "style," from Lila, Chap. 3:
"From that original perception of the Indians as the originators of the
American style of speech had come an expansion. The Indians were the
originators of the American style of life."
Pirsig is using the word "style" as in your definition No. 3.
> 3. a way of expressing something (in language or art or music etc.)
> that is characteristic of a particular person or group of people or
> period; "all the reporters were expected to adopt the style of the
> newspaper"
Style then is a descriptive characteristic of somebody or something. It
can be, but no necessarily, a negative as you suggest. The Indian style
is a positive style for Pirsig.
> Remember Rhetoric in ZMM? Style is an offshoot term, its manifestation
> from an ancient writing instrument into another term for rhetorical
> expression and nowadays you can do just about anything in a particular
> 'style' . This style, as I have said, is patched on because since Plato
> people have sought to define the good and where possible subordinate it
> intellectually which is thus increasingly strangling quality and
> producing 'forms' of classical ugliness. And so as people have become
> progressively alienated from 'the source of all things' the result has
> been a desperate attempt to reclaim this with 'style' or as Pirsig puts
> it in Chap 25..
>
> "The result is rather typical of modern technology, dullness of
> appearance so depressing that it must be overlaid with a veneer of
> 'style' to make it acceptable."
You've given us an example of the negative side (less good aspect) of
style. Compare with positive side (better aspect) of style as described
above.
> > How do you tell new or Dynamic from that which only "appears new?"
>
> From the harmony it produces.
Great answer. :-)
Regards,
Platt
> Regards,
>
> David H
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries -
> horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 01 2003 - 12:58:35 GMT