[MD] Taking words Seriously

[david buchanan]

Steve said:
...I don't see how we would ever need to worry about being in touch with reality. Likewise, if DQ is the leading edge of experience, then how is perceiving DQ something that "you" can be better or worse at? ...it is always in intimate contact with DQ.


Matt replied:
The "you" of static patterns is always situated at the front of the train, but it can face the back, or face forward.  One can then elaborate the analogy in terms similar to what Dave was saying: if you're facing backward, you're more likely to run into things; this is why we look where we're going.


dmb says:
As Pirsig explains it, the West has a blind spot for cultural and historical reasons. Northrop made similar observations, basically distinguishing hip and square cultures. He also explains which type of individuals within our culture are more and less likely to be sensitive to DQ. There is even a difference within the friendship between John Sutherland and ZAMM's narrator. I mean, of course one can be better or worse at it! 

An analogous question reveals the absurdity: "If sexual reproduction perpetuates the species, then how is getting laid something you can be better or worse at?" Hilarious. What kind of lover would ask that question? I'm betting he's no expert. 




Matt said:
...It's more or less easy to tell the difference between what Pirsig describes as "Dynamic Quality" and what he describes as "static patterns."  That's not what I'm concerned about, however.  I'm concerned about the kinds of questions that arise when one tries to put Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality to use in one's own life. 

dmb says:
It's a good question but the nature of this medium can't supply anything to your own experienced life. That's up to you. Words are all we get through this straw, you know? But you're right, the MOQ is supposed to matter where the rubber meets the road, in real life.