[MD] Stasis, Declination or Improvement of Quality

[Ham Priday]

Hi Bruce --


> I appreciate you critique and perspective. It is my objective
> to provide my concepts and perspective on Pirsig's writings
> and to learn from you all that share in a similar journey.
> It not my goal to simply restate what Pirsig has written, but
> to add twists that may not have been considered. I think that
> most folks that write are very auditory, but applying art and
> charts often open up a different understanding to a concept.
> I greatly appreciate your post as it helps me to stretch my
> mind and understanding.

I commend you for your candor, and have no wish to discourage these 
objectives which are shared by all the MD participants.  You should know up 
front that I have been critical of the Quality hierarchy as a "metaphysical" 
thesis, although favorably disposed toward the MoQ's emphasis on Value as 
the ground of existence.  Having developed a philosophy of my own, I don't 
claim to speak for Mr. Pirsig and, in fact, have epistemological problems 
with his rejection of the subjective self.  My caveat to you comes from 
personal experience here, and it concerns interpretations of Quality that 
stray too far from the diagram charted in Pirsig's SODV presentation paper 
of 1995.   (If you haven't yet read this, it's accessible at 
www.quantonics.com/)

> You stated, "Bruce's brainstorm is to make "static" apply to
> three Quality "states" which he defines as stasis, declination,
> and improvement.  His idea contradicts the MoQ in several
> significant respects." My attempt here is not make "Static"
> apply to these three states, but to say that beside "Static Patterns",
> things either improve or decline. IMO, there is only one true static
> pattern and that is total disorder or a return to "MU". "Static
> Patterns of Quality" have to consume in order to survive.
> In addition, something that is seen as a static pattern such as
> the biological level has to "improve" in order to survive as it
> must gain new defences. The point here is really even static
> patterns are not static, they are either improving or declining.

Any movement towards improvement or decline is not "static" but "dynamic", 
and is therefore regarded by the Pirsigians as a function of DQ.  (I have no 
stake in this contest, as I don't view Quality [or Value] as either an 
active agent or the equivalent of evolution.)

> The next point here, that seems to be in flux within this community,
> is to determine if Dynamic "Quality" only moves items in the
> direction of improvement or is also responsible for declination as well.
> I have struggled with this and try to make it both, but just can't quite
> make it fit. I think the problem is that Pirsig waffles on this in Lila
> and in other writings. In chapter 11 he clearly states that it is only
> the movement to improvement and that Dynamic Quality is not
> structure, but is not chaotic. He goes on to say that Dynamic Quality
> goes against the laws of nature. Thus, it appears to me that the laws
> of nature prove that there is a declination to disorder that is outside
> of Dynamic Quality. That said, is there Dynamic Quality and
> Dynamic Disorder as well? Some would have me believe that
> Dynamic Quality is nothing more than a big hammer that strikes
> shit every now and then to see what happens. Every time that it
> strikes things they automatically get better organized. Ugh, yeah
> that is what made all of this out of nothing. The thing is there is a
> force that drives things to improvement and I see that as Dynamic Quality.
> Sometimes things are destoyed so that something better can be created,
> but I would think that Dynamic Quality also uses the destructive qualities
> of nature to deconstruct so that construction for "betterness" can occur.
> As you stated, "stasis" and "movement" are a inherent to Quality itself...
> I would say, as I did above, even "stasis" is moving. The only
> "true stasis" is absolute disorder and that could only occur if items
> are left alone without Dynamic Quality.

I have the same problem with the MoQ concept of a "moral universe."  If the 
universe (which is Pirsig's Quality=Reality) is inherently moral, why did 
Haiti suffer a natural disaster three weeks ago, and why do viruses and 
genetic defects cause disease and abnormailities in human beings?  Clearly, 
such anomalies don't serve the cause of "betterness" in nature or its life 
forms.

My own position on this issue is that Morality is an invention of man.  We 
live in an amoral universe so that we can experience the extremes of 
goodness and evil.  We (as sensible subjects) are free to pursue the values 
we choose to live by.  You see, I believe the individual is the "agent of 
value" in this pluralistic world, that the "quality" of experiential 
existence represents the value-sensibility of man.  (Such an ontology is of 
course is impossible for a philosopher who dismisses subjective awareness 
but posits Quality as its "pattern" creator.)

> Once again, I truly appreciate your input and critique as I
> attempt to order my thoughts and ideas. I hope my input
> challenges others to new thoughts and ideas as well.

Pleased to have your acquaintance, Bruce, and thanks for lucidly outlining 
an original worldview inspired by the Quality concept.  As you see, I've 
corrected the typo in the heading and wish you all the best in your journey 
through Qualityland.

Essentially yours,
Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

> Greetings, Bruce and All --
>
> I hope you will give some consideration to the voice of a renegade here,
> because this approach to Quality is a step in the wrong direction. I say
> this not only because the basic premise is flawed, as I will attempt to
> show, but because it is clear to me that what Bruce is proposing would not
> have Mr. Pirsig's endorsement.
>
> The MoQ postulated by Pirsig is based on Quality as the fundamental 
> Reality.
> Any "subset" of Quality is either a "dynamic" level or a "static" pattern.
> The levels evolve to a "better" (i.e., higher moral) state, whereas the
> patterns remain fixed over time. This paradigm is theorized to encompass
> all aspects and processes of the universe, at least insofar as they are
> experienced.
>
> Bruce's brainstorm is to make "static" apply to three Quality "states" 
> which
> he defines as stasis, declination, and improvement. His idea contradicts
> the MoQ in several significant respects.
>
> First of all, the term "static" means "lack of movement, animation, or
> progression," so it applies only to the state defined as "stasis". Clearly
> a decline or an "improvement" in Quality is not a static state. Moreover,
> "declination" (misspelled in the header) is not included in Pirsig's
> paradigm. I'm not aware of any mention of Quality regressing or degrading
> to a chaotic state in the author's thesis. Also, "improvement" is already
> accounted for as the directional "movement" of Dynamic Quality. In short,
> Bruce's three proposed "static states" are neither new to the MoQ scheme 
> nor
> correctly named.
>
> That would be problematic enough for Pirsig, but in Bruce's analytical
> breakdown of this revised scheme he commits a semantic error which changes
> the whole context of his argument. In truth, he's not really addressing
> Quality as the "subject" of this analysis but as a modifier of the
> nominative "states". Consider the headings:
>
> 1. Static Quality [the quality of STASIS]
> 2. Dynamic Quality of IMPROVEMENT
> 3. Dynamic Quality of DECLINATION
>
> By using the three states of Quality as the active components of his
> proposition, Bruce has made the "state" the modus operandi instead of
> Quality itself. For example, he's really saying "Static Quality attempts 
> to maintain
> the status over time;" "[Improvement's] mission is to improve Quality over
> time;" "[Declination's] mission is to diminish or decay Quality over 
> time."
> In all three cases it is the "force" or power of a particular state which
> effects or produces the Quality change. I'm sure that Pirsig would point
> out that "stasis" and "movement" are inherent in Quality itself, that the
> resulting conditions or "states" are patterns of Quality.
>
> I don't mean to be critical of Bruce's hypothesis, as it is well conceived
> and could conceivably stand on its own as another perspective of 
> existential
> reality. Instead of a hierarchy of Quality levels, we could reduce the
> dynamics of the universe to Stasis, Dissolution, and Consolidation. (After
> all, Hegel is remembered for having reduced all process to Thesis,
> Antithesis, and Synthesis.)
>
> The point of my critique is that this is Bruce Underwood's concept, not
> Robert Pirsig's Quality thesis.
>
> Respectfully submitted,
> Ham
>
 Bruce Said:
> Hello Folks,
>
> I have been wrestling with this idea for a while and thought I would throw
> it out here for comments and banter. I hope to do better about responding,
> but it is hard to find the time to respond as I would like to.
>
> The idea here started off by thinking of what "Static" means and applying
> that to three areas: Stasis, declination and improvement. As many of you
> have seen, I think that Chaos is the state where something has declined 
> from
> organization to an absolute state of disorganization and is thus the
> opposite of Quality. However,energy still exists, but in a disorganized
> state. Dynamic Quality will continue to affect the energy. I see things as
> energy either moving towards improved organization or moving towards 
> chaotic
> disorder. Below is a link to an image that depicts what I have been 
> thinking
> about. You may want to think of it as life as you view it or most any item
> that is static.
>
> http://www.thinnerself.com/quality_of_improvement.gif
>
> I was thinking about this and came to think of "Quality" as being in one 
> of
> three states “Quality” states:
>
> Static Quality:
> Static Quality attempts to maintain the status over time. Static Quality’s
> position is to neither improve nor decay, but to maintain status quo.
> However, from an energy stand point, Static Quality must consume energy in
> order to maintain its position to not be consumed by Dynamic Quality of
> Chaos or Dynamic Quality of Improvement. By default then it would appear
> that Static Quality is a destructive force by nature as it consumes energy
> to remain static.
>
> Dynamic Quality of improvement:
> Its mission is to improve Quality over time by destruction and 
> construction
> and to establish ratchet points of Quality. By nature, it consumes energy 
> to
> move forward towards in a positive direction over time.
>
> Dynamic Quality of declination:
> It mission is to diminishes or decay Quality over time. Items move towards
> chaos and are being consumed in destruction. The only state of "true 
> Static
> Quality" is a state of total disorganization of energy into a chaotic 
> state.
>
> Thanks for your thoughts and responses,
>
> Bruce