[MD] Tuukka's Guitar : More Questions

[Dan Glover]

Nick, John, all,

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 9:57 AM, ngriffis <ngriffis at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Dan:
>
>>If we check out Chapter 12 in Lila, we find:
>
>
>
>>"In this plain of understanding static patterns of value are divided into
> four systems: inorganic patterns, biological patterns, social patterns and
> intellectual patterns. They are exhaustive. That's all there are. If you
> construct an encyclopedia of four topics-Inorganic, Biological, Social and
> Intellectual-nothing is left out. No "thing,"
>
> that is. Only Dynamic Quality, which cannot be described in any
> encyclopedia, is absent.
>
>
>
> Nick: What about the value pattern of the "Spiritual"? Intellectual covers
> what the human brain can rationalize and think about. The Spiritual has to
> be intuited and felt. This is where I think Persig's genius shines. He has
> created his metaphysics to deal with our Western and present day horns of
> the dilemma: Science vs. Religion...Intellect vs. Spirit. Quality, something
> that exists before the "four topics", before human thought...what is that
> but the Tao, the indefinable, the Spiritual? I think Pirsig might say, "No,
> the Spiritual pattern of value falls under the Intellectual Pattern of
> Value." Maybe, but he is asking us to intuit that there exists something
> called Quality. He is asking for our faith. That, to me, falls to the
> Pattern of Spiritual Value.

Dan:
If you read the above quote from Lila, you noticed there is nothing in
the MOQ insofar as a pattern of spiritual value. Robert Pirsig seemed
to've anticipated this when he wrote:

"It would seem at first appearance that Quality might be an equivalent
of Spirit, but this would be an enormous mistake. Quality is spiritual
only to the extent that motorcycles and sausages are spiritual."
[Copleston annotations]

Dan comments:
The way I see it, Robert Pirsig isn't asking us to have faith in
Quality. In ZMM, he proves to his students that they do indeed know
what Quality is without being told. For example:

"To reinforce the idea that they already knew what Quality was he
developed a routine in which he read four student papers in class and
had everyone rank them in estimated order of Quality on a slip of
paper. He did the same himself. He collected the slips, tallied them
on the blackboard and averaged the rankings for an overall class
opinion. Then he would reveal his own rankings, and this would almost
always be close to, if not identical with the class average. Where
there were differences it was usually because two papers were close in
quality.

"At first the classes were excited by this exercise, but as time went
on they became bored. What he meant by Quality was obvious. They
obviously knew what it was too, and so they lost interest in
listening. Their question now was "All right, we know what Quality is.
How do we get it?"

"Now, at last, the standard rhetoric texts came into their own. The
principles expounded in them were no longer rules to rebel against,
not ultimates in themselves, but just techniques, gimmicks, for
producing what really counted and stood independently of the
techniques...Quality. What had started out as a heresy from
traditional rhetoric turned into a beautiful introduction to it.

"He singled out aspects of Quality such as unity, vividness,
authority, economy, sensitivity, clarity, emphasis, flow, suspense,
brilliance, precision, proportion, depth and so on; kept each of these
as poorly defined as Quality itself, but demonstrated them by the same
class reading techniques. He showed how the aspect of Quality called
unity, the hanging-togetherness of a story, could be improved with a
technique called an outline. The authority of an argument could be
jacked up with a technique called footnotes, which gives authoritative
reference. Outlines and footnotes are standard things taught in all
freshman composition classes, but now as devices for improving Quality
they had a purpose. And if a student turned in a bunch of dumb
references or a sloppy outline that showed he was just fulfilling an
assignment by rote, he could be told that while his paper may have
fulfilled the letter of the assignment it obviously didn’t fulfill the
goal of Quality, and was therefore worthless.

"Now, in answer to that eternal student question, How do I do this?
that had frustrated him to the point of resignation, he could reply,
"It doesn’t make a bit of difference how you do it! Just so it’s
good." The reluctant student might ask in class, "But how do we know
what’s good?" but almost before the question was out of his mouth he
would realize the answer had already been supplied. Some other student
would usually tell him, "You just see it." If he said, "No, I don’t,"
he’d be told, "Yes, you do. He proved it." The student was finally and
completely trapped into making quality judgments for himself. And it
was just exactly this and nothing else that taught him to write."
[ZMM]

Dan comments:
Quality is not a matter of faith. In fact, quite the opposite. At the
same time, however, Phaedrus realized that even though he'd proven the
existence of Quality, the proof was irrational. He couldn't say why it
worked. The proof. And so yes, in essence he was asking his students
to have faith. In Quality. That Quality worked. Even though it
couldn't be defined. Quality. Thus, along came Lila and his
capitulation. Robert Pirsig's. Yes, you can define quality. But the
definition goes on and on. For example:

"Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone. Consciousness can
be described is a process of defining Dynamic Quality. But once the
definitions emerge, they are static patterns and no longer apply to
Dynamic Quality. So one can say correctly that Dynamic Quality is both
infinitely definable and undefinable because definition never exhausts
it." [Robert Pirsig, Lila's Child]

>
>
>
> Questions:
>
>         In the above quote, Persig qualifies his four patterns of value with
> "static". Why not "dynamic" also? Also, does "dynamic" value only appear on
> an individual level and then, when carried on to other individual, becomes
> "static"?

Dan:
There is no 'individual level' in the MOQ. The way I read it, Robert
Pirsig uses 'static' to qualify that which is defined while Dynamic
Quality remains undefined, even though we are constantly defining it.
Experience is Dynamic Quality. Once defined, the memories of
experience become static.

>
>
>
>         Dan, you seem to hold this discussion group together and on track.
> You bring out the text and quote from it and then make your point. I
> appreciate that and need to do that same to really contribute to this group.
> I live in Florida and books do not do very well in this humidity, so I only
> borrow my books from my Public Library. I might have to go "dynamic" here
> and change that value and keep volumes of "ZMM" and "Lila" here in the
> office. Thank you for your time, effort, and insights to the group.

Dan:
Thank you. ZMM is available freely online as an ebook and Lila is also
available in a Kindle edition:

https://www.amazon.com/Lila-Inquiry-Morals-Robert-Pirsig-ebook/dp/B00FUZPRNU/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1469504446&sr=1-1&keywords=lila+robert+pirsig#navbar

I do still read 'real' books mostly ones not available in ebook format.

>
>
>
> John McConnell:
>
>
>
>> One thing I see going on here is the inevitable intellectual craving to
> analyze and classify.  We want to be able to assign a "level" or a type of
> "pattern" to things.  Once Pirsig gave us the MOQ, we naturally want to
> learn how to see everything in terms of its constructs.  I'm not sure that's
> useful.
>
>> Then it doesn't matter what level they are or what kind of value pattern
> they are.  All that matters is that we know and recognize Quality when we
> experience it.  Knowing what kind of pattern something is doesn't make our
> lives better; being a medium of Dynamic Quality does.
>
>
>
>   Nick:      I think what Tuukka is trying to do is add to Pirsig's
> metaphysics. It is not an easy challenge. You and I do not see the use in
> defining the Intellectual level from the Social level from the Biological
> level of value patterns. We seem to be working to keep our focus on DQ. By
> Pirsig's definition of DQ, we will know it when we experience it, no matter
> on what level. Perhaps, we are only coming to DQ from a different direction
> than Tuukka. What might be most important is just that we all, as
> individuals and as a group, move closer to Quality in whichever way we can.
>
>
>
>
>
> John McConnell:
>
>
>
>>      He began to discern, as others have, successive levels of
> organization in the "stable patterns of value" emerging in the course of
> cosmic evolution.  Each such emergent pattern of value carried within itself
> the precedent levels, but brought forth a new and more robust "medium of
> expression" of Dynamic Quality.  Each new level became a new medium of
> creative evolution.  Another way to say this is that each new type of value
> pattern became a clearer expression of the "direction" of Dynamic Quality
> and offered less resistance to its impelling "energy".
>
>
>
> Nick:
>
>         "Evolution", I think is a key word to incorporate into the
> philosophy of MOQ. It is one science that provides a support for Persig's
> Quality. Evolution seems directly connected to DQ in that the survival of
> the species of man is hardwired in its genetics and its' surviving values.
> It moves towards Quality for its' survival. Each time an individual chooses
> Quality, rather than not, we evolve as individuals and as a species.
> Sometimes, we move away from Quality: Hitler and his values. Fortunately, in
> the great timeline of this earth and on balance, humankind moves forward,
> reaching out ever more for DQ and evolution.
>
>
>
> John McConnell:
>
>
>
>> A guitar, a computer program, a motorcycle, a violin I once owned-each is
> a "stable pattern of value", but more than that, it was crafted by someone
> who, to a greater or lesser degree, crafted it with "peace of mind" and did
> not "separate himself from the work so as to do it wrong."  It was
> experienced by someone who, to a greater or lesser degree, related to it in
> a way that expressed Dynamic Quality .
>
>
>
> Nick:
>
>         Your words are your own and very well chosen. I would say that you
> too are the poet and lyricist. Your ideas match Persig's model and speaks to
> the Quality and values that that guitar might or might not reflect.
>
>
>
>         A "stable pattern of value": Yes, I think that you have described
> the guitar's pattern of value well.  Anything man-made has value to
> different degrees. Value can be reflected in all its' different man-made
> categories and subcategories. The sub-categories might be Aesthetic and
> Utilitarian.  Is the guitar beautiful, can is make pure tones, does it fit
> the grip of the owner?
>
>
>
> Question:
>
>         Can you think of any other sub-category value groups that man-made
> pieces of art and craft could fall into?
>
>
>
>         I see how quickly one can get out of one's depth here when one asks
> questions of a metaphysics. One is opening a can of worms. Certainly, one
> must think at a deeper level when questions are asked...a good thing.
>
>
>
> John McConnell quotes Pirsig:
>
>
>
>> "Something about this doll was giving it all kinds of Quality the
> manufacturer had never built into it.  Lila had overlaid a whole set of
> value patterns on top of it and those values were still clinging to it."
>
>
>
> Nick:
>
>         To my recollection, the value patterns that Lila "overlaid" on top
> of the doll were not ones that brought her and the doll closer to Quality.
> In fact, her projected patterns of value took her further into her insanity
> and further away from that which we are seeking through MOQ.

Dan:
Lila's doll represented to her, Lila, the daughter she lost so long
ago. Dawn. Her name was Dawn. Remember? From Lila:

"How old is your baby now?" he asked.

"That surprised her. That was a new one. "What do you want to know that for?"

"I already told you before I started asking all these questions," he said.

"She's dead."

"How did she die?" he asked.

"I killed her," she said.

"She watched his eyes. She didn't like them. He looked mean. "You mean
accidentally," he said.

"I didn't cover her right and she smothered," Lila said. "That was long ago."

"Nobody blamed you though."

"Nobody had to. What could they say. . . that I didn't already know?"

"Lila remembered she still had the black funeral dress. She remembered
she had to wear it three times that year. There were hundreds of
people who came to her grandfather's funeral because he was a minister
and lots of Jerry's friends came to his funeral, but nobody came for
Dawn.

"Don't get me started thinking about that," she said."

Dan comments:
Part of Lila's fragile psyche must've had to do with the loss of her
child. For certainly she was right there all along, on the edge. Lila.
All she required was a push. And there for a moment, when she, Lila,
lost touch with reality, she came back to her. Dawn. I would hazard to
say at that moment, Lila was in touch with Dynamic Quality, that
timeless ineffable realm we all touch at times, in dreams, maybe when
death comes creeping, when we lose touch with what we know to be real
and instead escape into the mystery.

>
>
>
> John McConnell:
>
>
>
>> the "things" our intellect calls "inanimate objects" become imbued with
> Dynamic "potential" that affects us when we encounter them.  We are capable
> of feeling Dynamic Quality in and through them.
>
>
>
> Nick:
>
>        I like your idea and it rings true to the Pirsig's model as I imagine
> it. I would say that a guiding thought has value, if it helps people move
> closer to Quality. I suppose care is needed though.  The Taoists would say
> that the more you try to put Quality in a box, the further away you will
> move from it. I think that is why what Persig has done is considered such a
> great feat. He has given us an idea of Quality without killing it.
>
>
>
> Question:
>
>         Dan...group: What would you say to John's idea above?
>
>
>
>         I would add that in-order for Quality to be reflected by an
> inanimate object (the guitar), it might take the interaction of the guitar
> and a human being. I am not sure about this.
>
>
>
> Questions:
>
>         Do you think that I am correct in this idea? Do you think a guitar
> has quality or it doesn't, no matter if there is interaction with a human
> being or not?

Dan:
How would we know? This is akin to asking if the world keeps on
turning when we die. How would we know one way or the other?

>
>
>
>         I imagine Persig's model as this: Quality is that  which you
> describe: " In the beginning there was Quality, and it was ineffable,
> indefinable, un-analyzable."
>
>         I think he says that we move toward Quality or away from it as a
> result of the interaction between ourselves and our environment. Further, we
> can know when we have been successful or not, barring the human pitfall of
> self delusion. This is why I like your idea of inanimate objects becoming
> imbued with dynamic potential when we come into their circle. "We are
> capable of feeling Dynamic Quality in and through them" depending upon how
> we interact with those objects and if we do so with an attitude of caring.
> Of course, this is true concerning our interactions with living beings, just
> more difficult.

Dan:
I like to think it is easier to care about interacting with and among
living beings than the inanimate 'objects' that we take to be separate
and apart from us. I do enjoy watching the expressions of joy washing
over a loved one's face whenever we meet for the first time in ages,
and we hug and say to each other, yeah, it's been a minute. Like even
more like though we've been apart for years, it only seems a minute.
Which it does. But a minute.

Anyway,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com