[MD] The Tao of Quality - Verse 1

[david buchanan]

Dan said to Krimel:
...I suppose there isn't really a problem saying Dynamic Quality is irrational. However, some of the negative connotations of irrationality might mislead those who have yet to familiarize themselves with the MOQ. They might think: oh, only mad people and crazy folk can fathom what Robert Pirsig is saying. Or perhaps I am on about nothing. I don't know.

dmb says:
That's pretty much what I was thinking but my version of this criticism goes a bit further. Irrational does mean "not rational" but the term is very often used pejoratively to characterize faulty reasoning, magical thinking, mental illness, and the like. In fact, that's how the word is ordinarily used. People say you're being irrational when you not making any sense or when you're taking some silly superstition seriously. Knock on wood. 

Since "pre-conceptual" and "pre-intellectual" are also terms that mean "not rational" but give us that meaning without the pejorative connotations or misleading associations, those terms are much better at capturing Pirsig's intention. The question driving the whole structure of the MOQ is, after all, "what's good"? The MOQ is about morals, values, excellence. It's about what's true and right and artful. And the whole structure of it is arranged around DQ (pre-conceputal or pre-intellectual experience). I think it would be more accurate to say that this primary empirical reality is neither rational nor irrational but "pre-rational" seems okay. We don't need it because the terms Pirsig uses are just fine but it doesn't carry the same negative baggage. "Irrational" would be a bad substitute. Objections to this aren't really overcome by pointing to the less common meaning of "irrational" (as "non-rational" in a non-pejorative sense). That's the conceptual version of escaping your criminal conviction on a technicality. I mean, unless the purpose is to be pejorative, use of the term "irrational" in relation to "Quality" or "Dynamic Quality" just shows bad rhetorical taste. It's the wrong word in the sense that it's a bad artistic choice.




Krimel replied to Dan:
No, no I see your point. Again for me there is a sort of gestalt shift that occurs when meanings get contrary and sort of oscillates. Pirsig sketches all this kind of thing out but it is not as though all the details are there or that he gets it right in every instance. I am a blind man touching elephants. The places I can lay hands on the beast the more perspectives I have. The elephant is "like" a rope or a wall or a tree trunk or... No single bit of fondling can teach me about an elephant. The "elephant" emerges from the process of touching.



dmb says:
I see what you mean but I'd like qualify and clarify the basic idea.

Like any philosophical view, the MOQ itself is static and should not be confused with the Quality it talks about and around which it is focused. In that sense, it's not clear what sort of elephant you are molesting. If we are talking about DQ itself, then there is nothing to say. That's not something that can be put into words or sent in an email. MOQ-DISCUSS accommodates the metaphysics, the skilled manipulation of intellectual static patterns , but not DQ as such. So let's say the elephant you're groping is static and in particular you are looking to get your hands on as many different features as you can so as to puzzle out what the thing really looks like. 

To do that, you'd want to fondle as many descriptions as you can and in this case what you mostly get are negative descriptions, by which I mean descriptions that rely on saying what DQ is NOT. The first one is "undefinable". That just tells you what it isn't; it is not definable. It is not conceptual. It is not intellectual. It is not divided. It's undivided in the sense that there are no conceptual or intellectual distinctions. Already you can see start to infer the shape of this abused elephant, no? Pirsig also calls it the "primary empirical reality" in contrast to concepts, which are secondary. 

Then we can bring in terms from other philosophers, starting with the others who are mentioned by Pirsig in relation to this same elephant. In ZAMM he equates Northrop's "undifferentiated aesthetic continuum" and Poincare's "subliminal awareness" with his "Quality". In Lila he equates James's "pure experience" and "immediate flux of life" with his own DQ. So we have a wide variety of terms even within the primary texts. If you want to look outside of those two books, there are even more ways to violate this beast.

If you can read all those terms in such a way that they all mean the same thing, in such a way that each term has the effect of illuminating and clarifying the meaning of the others, then you know you've pretty well discerned the basic shape of the thing. This is not meditation or mysticism. It's a comparative analysis of the text's key terms and core concepts. An analysis of just two of the terms used will preclude certain misconceptions or misinterpretations. If somebody asks, "in what sense if this immediate experience undivided?", you can answer by pointing to the term "pre-conceptual" and explain that it "undivided" in the sense that it is experience prior to conceptual distinctions, prior to the differentiations of reflective consciousness. And then, hopefully, that somebody will say, "Oh, that's what Northrop means by 'undifferentiated'!" And then you'll say, "yep, you've got it". 

No elephants were harmed in the production of this explanation.