[MD] The Tao of Quality - Verse 1

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Krimel <Krimel at krimel.com> wrote:
> Dan:
> I found this in The Guidebook to ZMM; perhaps it might be relevant here:
>
> "Two things that intuitionists frequently say about intuition are worth
> singling out here, because they have special relevance to ZMM's
> epistemological insights. One is that intuition is a sort of "inside"
> knowledge, a knowledge had by a sort of sympathetic entry into the thing
> known rather than by an external examination; a kind of knowledge by
> identity rather than by confrontation. This is the idea of intuition that
> you can find in the writings of Henri Bergson (1859-1941), who described
> intuition with phrases like "intellectual sympathy." It is also the idea
of
> intuition that young Phaedrus encountered in the writings of Albert
> Einstein, who said that the universal laws of the cosmos could only be
> reached by "intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience"
> (quoted in ZMM, p.99). That idea would be carried forward in the
narrator's
> reflections (undoubtedly inspired by, if not inherited from, Phaedrus)
about
> the relation of Quality to caring (ZMM, pp. 25, 247).
>
> "Just as for Einstein the intuition of cosmic laws is rooted in a
> sympathetic understanding of experience, so for the narrator the intuition
> of Quality is rooted in caring about what one is seeing and doing. But for
> the narrator the flow goes both ways. Caring-which, you might care to
note,
> involves both willing and feeling-is reciprocally related to Quality. The
> more you care in your knowing and doing, the more you see (or intuit)
> Quality. The more you intuit Quality, the more you care. "A person who
sees
> Quality and feels it as he works is a person who cares. A person who cares
> about what he sees and does is a person who's bound to have some
> characteristics of Quality." (ZMM, p. 247)." [Guidebook to ZMM pg 171-172]
>
> Dan comments:
> A couple things stand out here: first, the role of sympathetic entry into
> the thing known. Dusenberry comes to mind here with his Rocky Boy Indians.
> Rather than playing the role of an 'objective observer' standing apart,
the
> observer becomes one with the observation in a very real way. Second,
there
> is a reciprocity involved as well. Not only does the observer come to care
> very deeply about the observation, the reverse is true as well. Remember
how
> the Indians always described Dusenberry as a GOOD man, emphasis on good.
>
> [Krimel]
> Good points, I would mention Dwight Conquergood an ethnographer who worked
> in refugee camps in Thailand as Cambodians fled Pol Pot. Conquergood
> insisted on living in the camps with the people instead of on the distant
UN
> base. While working in Chicago he lived in a neighborhood of Hmong
refugees
> and aided them much as Dusenberry did. Later he moved to North Chicago in
a
> gang infested poor neighborhood. Brought his caring and compassion to his
> work as an ethnographer.
>
> With respect to intuition, CS Pierce called it abduction. He saw it as a
> form of reasoning where answer just sort of come to you. This is an
> irrational process but we use reason to check these answers. So for Pierce
> deductive reasoning (top down) and inductive reasoning (bottom up) were
> secondary forms to provide systematic verification. BTW, intuition or
> abduction are the source of all those hypotheses that so bedeviled Pirsig
in
> his chemistry days.

Dan:
Is intuition the same as guessing? Quite honestly, from what I've read of
Peirce his writings seem as dry as the surface of Mars and twice as briny
but perhaps that's just me. On the other hand, Conquergood seems like a
remarkable fellow, especially if he has the stones to live in North
Chicago.

>
> [Dan]
> I think the artist (and that includes all the arts) delves so deeply into
> their art that they become the art, that is, if they are GOOD artists. The
> caring is such that art not only informs them but becomes them: a Van
Gogh,
> for example, or a Cezanne. Picasso's work is instantly recognizable.
>
> [Krimel]
> I think Pirsig's great contribution here is to recognize that a barbeque
> grill is sculpture and fixing a motorcycle is artistic work.

Dan:
I thought the bit about the table on which he had re-glued the veneer and
tied with string to hold it in place was telling. He jokingly told DeWeese
it was his latest sculpture and DeWeese studied it a long time before
asking him how he learned to do it. He thought DeWeese was just continuing
the joke until he realized he was serious.

What does that say about the artist recognizing art? If we are told
something is art, is it necessarily so? It would seem to me an artist would
be the first to realize something wasn't art but perhaps on account of
their proclivity in that direction they are blind to classical rationality
in a sense.

>
> [Dan]
> The question then becomes: how does this relate to the MOQ, specifically
to
> Dynamic Quality and static quality?
>
> I would say in essence there is no separation between the two. If a person
> is too static they become stuck. If they are too Dynamic they become lost.
> By striking a balance, by using not only rationality but intuition as
well,
> a person, especially an artist, can bring into being something new and yet
> still grounded in the old.
>
> [Krimel]
> I think you have hit upon a point that Lao Tzu makes. We are on a path.
Our
> journey is a flow. We seek harmony along the way. The road twists and
turns.
> Parts are familiar; others are new. Quality is a balance of all the things
> life lays before us. This is why I claim there is not clear line to
> distinguish SQ and DQ. They are derived after the fact from our experience
> of Quality.

Dan:
Well, I would say static quality is derived from experience. 'Fact' as you
use it above would seem to indicate a preordained pre-existing notion, an
ideal, an absolute experience, from which we derive static quality and
Dynamic Quality. The MOQ what with it being a metaphysics isn't reality
itself but rather a map of reality: static quality. There is by necessity a
line between that which is defined and that from which definition emerges.

>
> [Dan]
> I have reservations about intuition as Dynamic Quality, however.
> Rather, I think it is knowledge outside the bounds of rationality.
> Does intuition bring us closer to Dynamic Quality? Perhaps it is the first
> move away from pre-intellectual awareness. David Morey posted a paper that
> seems pertinent. I don't know if you have seen it:
>
>
http://www.thersa.org/action-research-centre/social-brain/reports/the-divide
> d-brain
>
> David said something like the right side of the brain being Dynamic while
> the left side is static. I hesitate to say as much. Rather, it would seem
> intuitive might be a better label to to hang on the right side.
>
> [Krimel}
> My first instinct is to argue that intuition is a subset of the irrational
> and is entirely pre-intellectual. But your point is well taken. I am
> attracted by the negative connotations of the word. It forces me to
confront
> and challenge them and I think the effort pays off. But that is probably
> just me. I do think it offers another perspective on the experience of
> dynamic Quality though. One that offsets the exuberance of DQ as the
mainly
> mystical.
> I used to complain frequently about Pirsig's use of the term Quality
instead
> of Tao. My problem with Quality is the inverse of your problem with
> irrational. I think Quality brings a positive set of luggage with it but
> because it is positive no one seem to miss the negative.

Dan:
I appreciate that. I think we are better served if we keep the term Dynamic
Quality free of all baggage both positive and negative. Actually, if you
have studied the Tao Te Ching at all you already know it is both a manual
for a virtuous life and a road map to hell. Yet at the heart of it lies the
unnameable process of the universe, that which gives rise to all things and
yet is inexhaustible.

The MOQ follows the same path in that static quality is both good and evil
and everything in between while all these definitions emerge from Dynamic
Quality.

>
>>[Krimel]
>> That's how I put a thread or two over. On reflection I wouldn't make
>>too much of the word judgment which does seem out of place. But
>>basically something like that. In fact I could use some assistance in
>>working that part out. Perhaps habits or drives would be better.
>
> Dan:
> I guess it depends. Habits seems too static unless it has to do with
caring.
> This artistic drive some folk feel is quite likely a response to Dynamic
> Quality but I don't know if we can say it is Dynamic Quality itself. I
think
> Robert Pirsig says something like some artists have to create art; if they
> don't they go crazy. In that regard, the drive we feel to create art is a
> response to something we cannot name, something that is hidden from us and
> yet is always there pushing us.
>
> [Krimel]
> Perhaps something like what Kierkegaard calls faith. It is an orientation
> that takes over one's life and moves one outside of morality. A form of
> personal transcendence. Or maybe Maslow's self-actualization, the ability
to
> transcend the self. In this case not just the ability but the compulsion.

Dan:
I suspect if we could name it and encapsulate it, we'd have a lot more
artists in the world. As it is, even those who create art aren't sure where
it comes from. Take these words, for instance: I had no intention sitting
down and answering this post. I've read it over many times without thinking
of responding.

I don't know anything about Peirce or Kierkegaard or Maslow. Sure, I can
Google the names and get a rudimentary sense of what they are saying but
why bother. To me, that is just more old tea.

Rather, by allowing these words to form on the screen in front of me
perhaps I can offer a fresh point of view unbound by prejudice and
self-serving blather, not inculcated by hundreds and thousands of
philosophogists all purporting to know the one and true insight into life.

Now, I know there are those who argue a person must immerse themselves
deeply into the pool of knowledge, gathering up and storing every morsel of
truth, rooting out all manner of depravity, and only then can they hope to
offer anything new and original. The thing is, that pool is so deep and so
intense a person is likely as not to drown in the morass of details before
ever surfacing with anything of value.

>
>>
>> [Krimel]
>>> Have you defined
>>> DQ so rigidly that you are certain what is and what is not the
>>> proper way to speak of it?
>>
>> Dan:
>> I feel I have been consistent over the years with not defining Dynamic
>> Quality in any way. We can say what it is not, but as soon as we say
>> what it is, we have effectively encapsulated it into static patterns.
>>
>> [Krimel]
>> Perhaps, but I am not sure how saying what something is not escapes
>> being a definition. It is about like saying what something is, it just
> takes longer.
>> But think of it this way, when Pirsig say that DQ IS the
>> pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality I don't think he means this
>> as exhaustive account of what the "pre-intellectual" is. So while I
>> understand your reservations with identifying DQ with the irrational,
>> I think see fewer problems with claiming that the pre-intellectual is
> irrational.
>
> Dan:
> I think he uses terms like 'pre-intellectual' and 'cutting edge of
> experience' to point to that which cannot be defined. In my opinion, we
> should take care not to begin intellectualizing Dynamic Quality into
> something we think it is by defining it. He did so in an effort to point
at
> it, to use experience as the beginning point of the MOQ.
>
> In essence, 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.
>
> [Krimel]
> 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.

Dan:
I see what you mean. I suppose part of the reason I continue here is not in
hopes of ever working out all the details but rather allowing that which I
cannot fully fathom to emerge little by little and in the process let go of
that which I thought I knew.

Thank you,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com