[MD] Where do we all stand in relation to Pirsig's Quality?

[Matt Kundert]

SA,

SA asked about:
The MOQ doesn't come up very much, and the fitting of quality into our 
discussions would make quality much more applicable to our understanding, 
unless, long ago many on this MOQ.org have

(1) given up on MOQ because of its' poor quality
(2) because it is difficult and thus out of our reach intellectually and/or 
practically; and/or
(3) people just don't use it for some reason, they have other motives.

Matt:
It seems to me, from what I've been able to tell, no one has "given up" on 
Pirsig's philosophy, or find it too difficult, through their stay here, or 
at least, if they did, they're no longer around here.  People have, more or 
less, the same relation to Pirsig now as they did when they came in (it 
could be argued that I'm a possible exception).

I think the answer to your third statement is that people _don't_ use 
Pirsig's terminology all the time, just as I doubt people walk around their 
real lives talking about Dynamic Quality when they are eating toast or 
getting their oil changed.  (Of course, maybe people do.)  I think every 
single person does have a collection of different motives for being here.  
That's the good thing about a far-flung discussion group and I don't think 
that's bad.  Whenever I see somebody talking suspiciously about somebody's 
"motives" for being here or having an "alterior motive", I simply read 
"motive" as "interest I'm not interested in".  That's all I think it amounts 
to.  Everybody has different interests.  We're not always going to have 
converging interests.  The hope for a forum like this is that you'll find 
_somebody_ with similar interests, or "motives".  And I think you said it 
well, SA.  That despite our sometimes diverging interests, everyone at this 
forum _should_ be able to say _something_ about their relation to Pirsig 
(even if it isn't definitive because they don't know how they totally feel 
about Pirsig yet).  But getting people to speak up is a different matter.

So while it's not always the case that people _use_ Pirsig's philosophy, I 
do think it's more or less the case for almost everybody on here that they 
have Pirsig in the back of their head when they write.  One of the things 
that goes on here is talk _about_ Pirsig, about how what he says works, 
about _how_ you'd put it to use.  And when that happens the conversation 
will sometimes stray away as issues that come up are worked out.  But when 
most people write, be it me or Scott or Sam or Ian or DMB, even if they 
don't use the words "Quality" or "Pirsig", they have his philosophy in the 
back of their heads, what they write has a relation to Pirsig in some way.

And on the other hand, I also think of it as a way of reading.  Whenever I 
read anything here, I always have Pirsig in the back of my head, even if the 
other person may not.  How does this effect Pirsig?  Does this sound like 
something a Pirsigian would say?  One doesn't need Pirsig or Quality 
mentioned to be able to make that assessment.  When Ham talks about his 
Essentialism, it doesn't sound anything like the Pirsig I understand and 
love.  The only relation it bears to Pirsig that I can see is that 
Essentialism is the kind of philosophy that Pirsig would call "SOM", and I'm 
not always out on a "argue against SOM" kick.  I don't care so much that he 
talks about it because I can just not take part in it.  So I just stay away 
from the conversations, just as I stay away from the political 
conversations.  If we try and let a hundred flowers bloom, weeds will pop up 
once in a while, but that's the price we pay for freedom.

But, as for my own personal answer to the thread title's question, in 
general my relation to Pirsig is that I think his books contain passages 
that are in tension with each other.  I've called these two parts many 
things, but one way is to identify the parts I don't like with the Platonism 
that Pirsig fought against in ZMM and the parts I do like with the 
pragmatism Pirsig co-opts in LILA.  I think working Pirsig out of this 
tension requires some changes in his vocabulary and the way we understand 
that vocabulary (for instance, dropping the glasses analogy in LILA).  (My 
more fleshed out "platform statement" for my relation to Pirsig is still in 
my very old, and somewhat outdated, Forum essay "Confessions".)

My specific relation to Pirsig's term "Quality" is to say that it is a 
thesis delievered in philosophical space.  It has a lot of consequences, 
many of which parallel philosophical points developed by other philosophers, 
but my favorite is James' slogan "the trail of the human serpent covers 
all."  Pirsig tries to make some sort of deal out of the difference between 
James' "utility" and his own "value", but I see no difference and I take 
them to be pointing out the same thing.

Matt

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/