[MD] Waiter, I don't think this Quality is any Good

[MarshaV]

Andre, this is a wonderful post!!!!!!!     - Marsha   


On Jan 15, 2010, at 4:24 AM, Andre Broersen wrote:

> Steve to Andre:
> ... can you explain what you did mean by "I don't believe in Quality"?
> 
> Andre:
> Hi Steve, I really cannot remember whether I had anwered this or
> not..rather hectic here. Anyway, here goes...
> I wasn't playing cat and mouse nor word games. My experience of
> Quality is as real as my experience of the existence of my computer at
> which I work at the moment, or the chair upon which I sit.
> 
> Do I 'believe'. in the existence of my computer? Do I believe in the
> existence of the chair. This is a peculiar use of the word 'believe'.
> 
> Do you 'believe' in the sun rise when you see it?
> 
> Did Lao Tzu 'believe' in the Tao?
> Did Siddharta Gautama 'believe' in enlightenment?
> Did Jesus 'believe' in God the Father? ( supposing Jesus existed and
> actually said what he allegedly said).
> 
> Does Pirsig 'believe' in Quality?
> 
> The simple answer of course is no.
> 
> Look at this:
> He crosses a lonesome valley, out of the mythos, and emerges as if
> from a dream, seeing that his whole consciousness, the mythos, has
> been a dream and no one's dream but his own, a dream he must now
> sustain of his own efforts. Then even ``he'' disappears and only the
> dream of himself remains with himself in it. And the Quality, the
> areté he has fought so hard for, has sacrificed for, has never
> betrayed, but in all that time has never once understood, now makes
> itself clear to him and his soul is at rest.
> 
> At no point does Pirsig state that he 'believes' in Quality. No, he is
> absolutely convinced it is here. And, of course even more, it is
> fundamental to everything.
> 
> It can be apprehended by direct experience. No belief required. If
> belief was required you'd have to take Pirsig's word for its
> existence, but you don't.
> 
> This is what I liked about Matt's post the other day. Quality is. It
> doesn't belong to Pirsig!
> 
> The static representations thereof, as laid down by Pirsig are general
> enough to appeal to anybody and accept or reject as a way of ordering
> experience within an evolutionary frame. That is all.
> 
> Pirsig has left the door wide open to find out for ourselves how to
> live within the DQ/SQ configuration. Nowhere does he say; "Thou
> shall..." and nowhere does he say: 'This is the way it is and this is
> its ultimate goal!!
> 
> The static representations are no papal bull.
> 
> It is a biographical metaphysics. Perhaps a cultural biographical
> metaphysics as well. It sure is the first metaphysics, or any other
> philosophy that I know of, in which its 'subject matter' is allowed a
> voice....a part to play.
> 
> The MoQ is a living program in which we are all allowed to play our part.
> 
> No ultimate or absolute goal because this hasn't been played out.
> These issues are being played out at the code levels, the 'battle'
> zones. The DQ/SQ configuration.
> 
> I'm beginning to rattle on now, sorry.
> 
> For what it is worth.
> Andre
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Andre

  
_______________________________________________________________________
   
Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars...