[MD] The Individual Level

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

[Platt]
It's a matter of emphasis. You take most of your examples from ZMM. I take mine
from Lila. Neither of us is so wise as to speak for Pirsig, but I consider his
later thinking to correct some of his earlier thinking, changing from the
Classic/Romantic split to the Static/Dynamic Quality split being the major case
in point.

[Arlo]
I'm not sure if I'd call this a "correction". What he says is that the schism
solved in ZMM through unifying classic and romantic modes does not make the
schism the best primary cut of Quality. But the classic-romantic problem still
exists.

[Platt]
It's more accurate to say a free market opens the door to DQ. The free market,
like free speech, is an individual level virtue.

[Arlo]
A free market is a social level pattern that achieves strong balance between
static and Dynamic forces. Free speech is an intellectual level pattern that
achieves the same balance on the intellectual level.

As such, emphasizing "balancing these qualities" is the underlying root "trait"
of the Quality Principled Person. On the social level, it manifests itself as a
"free marketeer", on the intellectual level it manifests itself as a "Good
orator" (I suppose). Therefore, a person achieving this balance will always
become a "free marketeer", but being a "free marketeer" does not necessarily
imply that this balance will be sought across all levels and endeavors.
"Balance" imples the "free market", emphasize "the free market" stresses only a
static social level pattern.

[Platt]
On further investigation of the root of arete in Lila, Pirsig traced it back to
mean "ritual." This is a good example of what I meant by saying Pirsig
progressed in his thinking from ZMM to Lila. "The meanings, grouped together,
suggested something different than his (earlier) interpretation of arete."
(Lila, 30 -parens added).

Incidentally, while reviewing what Pirsig had to say about arete in Chap. 30, I
happened across the following: "Dharma is duty. It is not external duty which
is arbitrarily imposed by others. Neither is it internal duty which is
arbitrarily decided by one's own conscience. Dhrama is beyond all questions of
what is internal and what is external."  Does this suggest to you that all our
talk about what is a Quality person is a waste of time since "internal duty,"
trying to be a QPP, is fundamentally arbitrary?

[Arlo]
All good points. I've been reviewing the dharma sections on Lila recently as
well. This mention of duty is similar to ZMM, where Pirsig writes, ""What moves
the Greek warrior to deeds of heroism," Kitto comments, "is not a sense of duty
as we understand it...duty towards others: it is rather duty towards himself."
This "duty" (expressed in ZMM) also transcends the modern notions of "self" and
"others", the same sentiment expressed in Lila. This is why sacrifice of the
self for the city was seen as an act of duty to self. In the pre-S/O dualist
mind, "self" and "others" were not polar, but intertwined by duty to that which
transcends both.

I don't think our talk about what a Quality person is is a waste of time, per
se. In many ways, it is like "what is Quality art?". I think what I've tried to
do with the QPP is focus away from static particulars, and focus on
"individual" traits that would evidence what somone "in touch with Quality"
would appear like. It may be subtle, but I think of it like talking about the
emotions produced in the viewer (of the art), rather than the "form" or "style"
applied by the artist.

The idea of rt as "ritual" is interesting. I like this passage.

"Phaedrus thought that Oriental social cohesiveness and ability to work long
hard hours without complaint was not a genetic characteristic but a cultural
one. It resulted from the working out, centuries ago, of the problem of dharma
and the way in which it combines freedom and ritual. In the West progress seems
to proceed by a series of spasms of alternating freedom and ritual. A
revolution of freedom against old rituals produces a new order, which soon
becomes another old ritual for the next generation to revolt against, on and
on. In the Orient there are plenty of conflicts but historically this
particular kind of conflict has not been as dominant. Phaedrus thought it was
because dharma includes both static and Dynamic Quality without contradiction."

I see no conflict between this, and what he says in ZMM, "Areté implies a
respect for the wholeness or oneness of life, and a consequent dislike of
specialization. It implies a contempt for efficiency...or rather a much higher
idea of efficiency, an efficiency which exists not in one department of life
but in life itself."

And finally, I find this passage quite relevent.

"Phaedrus saw nothing wrong with this ritualistic religion as long as the
rituals are seen as merely a static portrayal of Dynamic Quality, a sign-post
which allows socially pattern-dominated people to see Dynamic Quality. The
danger has always been that the rituals, the static patterns, are mistaken for
what they merely represent and are allowed to destroy the Dynamic Quality they
were originally intended to preserve."

I could addend the QPP, then, with "Through an understanding of Dharma, s/he is
able to master static patterns while always maintaining the understanding that
these are mere portrayls or Dynamic Quality." Of course, you know, this already
exists in the QPP definition. "Value flexibility" covers this precisely.

[Platt]
In Lila, Pirsig discoveres "arete" meant ritual. Lots of that on both sides of
the aisle, but more so with liberals, like their ritual effort to raise the
minium wage.

[Arlo]
Oh c'mon. Liberals are more "ritual" than conservatives? Must everything be
tainted with this?

[Platt]
Disagree. Pirsig says explicitly in Lila what he means by Quality. It's "direct
experience." You don't have to read ZMM to understand the MOQ.

[Arlo]
Quality is excellence, first and foremost. No? Getting back to the passage cited
above, "dharma includes both static and Dynamic Quality without contradiction",
if Quality is dharma, "Dynamic Quality", direct experience, is only half of it.

[Platt]
And you like the sections that support you leftist leanings. So?

[Arlo]
You know, I don't think the QPP definition is "leftist". I had thought it
transcended this division. In fact, I thought it showed more of an "artist" or
"Zen monk" or "motorcycle mechanic" or some such thing than a "leftist".

And of the traits you laid out, "honesty" for example, I have said I support,
but only as outcomes of being Quality centered. That is, the QPP would know
when to be "honest" and when "appropriate dishonesty" (or whatever) is
necessary. As such, "honesty" is an important social skill, but not a pristine
virtue. And "craftsmanship", I'm not sure why you think this is a "rightist"
trait. I think being left or right has nothing to do at all with demonstrating
craftsmanship. 

[Platt]
Clinton has a beginner's mind as evidenced by his behavior with Monica in the
White House.

[Arlo]
That's not a "beginner's mind" as Pirsig describes it, and you know it. You
mean, of course, he acted childishly. I'd say he lacked discretion, but its a
shame that something that had nothing to do with you or me was deliberately
used to hurt so many people. One can only hope such a gleeful public flogging
of humiliation never happens to anyone you care about.

[Platt]
Having a Farrah Fawcett poster demonstrates your appreciation of beauty.

[Arlo]
Well, it demonstrates I left my appreciation for beauty back in the seventies.
:-)

[Platt]
On that level  we would probably find much agreement, except in the case of rock
and roll. :-)

[Arlo]
Yeah, I just can't get into Barry Manilow. ;-)

[Platt]
Finally, duty imposed by others vs. duty according to one's own conscience is
what I see as separating the collective from the individual level.  Your trying
to be a QPP is an individual level exercise. I think you would make the attempt
even if stranded on a desert island -- not that that you would want to test it.
:-)

[Arlo]
The two "duties" you mention are transcended by Dharma. That's the point. There
is no war between "duty to self" and "duty to others". That's just political
myth-making. The key, as in ZMM and LILA, is to transcend this and approach a
duty that is to excellence. Sometimes this serves "others" and sometimes the
"self", and this is Good.

If I was stranded on a desert island, I think having a "beginner's mind" would
serve me better than "integrity". Egolessness and value flexibility would serve
better than honesty and honor. That's been the point all along.