[MD] The Individual Level

[Platt Holden]

Arlo:

After due consideration I feel there's not much to be gained by continuing this
particular conversation. Our respective views have been enunciated clearly
enough so as to leave little doubt as to what we mean. That we will 
continue to disagree is more or less a given. As Pirsig wisely said in 
his SODV paper: "The reason there is a difference between individual 
evaluations of quality is that although Dynamic Quality is a constant, 
these static patterns are different for everyone because each person 
has a different static pattern of life history. Both the Dynamic 
Quality and the static patterns influence his final judgment. That is 
why there is some uniformity among individual value judgments but not 
complete uniformity."   

As the French are reported to say: "Vive la difference."

Platt
 



> [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.