clark (clark@netsites.net)
Tue, 6 Jan 1998 09:27:07 +0100
----------
> From: Diana McPartlin <diana@asiantravel.com>
> To: Multiple recipients of <lilasqd@mail.hkg.com>
> Subject: LS The Principle of Quality
> Date: Monday, January 05, 1998 2:01 PM
>
> Hi everyone
>
> Going through the various principles that people have offered, there
> doesn't seem to be too much disagreement over what things should be
> mentioned. Several people have put a "principle of Quality" on their
> list and that seems like a good place to start. I've pulled out all
> these principles and made comments about them below. Let me know what
> you think...
>
> >From Martin
> >What is Quality?
> >It's 'now,' the pre-intellectual cutting edge of experience.
>
> This sounds more like a description of Dynamic Quality, in fact in chap
> 9 that's precisely how Pirsig describes Dynamic Quality. Quality
> however, includes Dynamic and static.
>
> >It is also goodness and truth.
>
> Goodness, yes. Truth? doesn't the MoQ say that there are many truths?
>
> >The sanskrit word is 'arete.'
>
> Fair enough, but unless one is familiar with sanskrit this isn't a very
> helpful piece of information. It's interesting but I don't think it's
> necessary in the principles.
>
>
>
> >From Magnus
> >The Quality principle
> >Quality is the origin of reality.
>
> Yes, Quality is the origin of reality but it is also reality itself. To
> say that Quality is the origin of reality without adding that it also IS
> reality suggests that reality is something other than Quality.
>
> >Reality is the result of Quality Events. Quality Events are,
> >from within reality, often called observations.
>
> If we have a principle about Quality Events I think it should be
> separate as it confuses the issue. Are Quality Events mentioned in Lila?
> Can someone give me a reference?
>
>
>
> >From Anthony
> >What does Pirsig mean by the term "Quality"?
>
> >Well, in "Lila" he states that it is "the first slice of undivided
experience" ("Lila", Bantam
> >Press, >1991, P.111).
>
>
> I have the Black Swan version of Lila so forgive me if this is a
> different passage, but I think it is paragraph 6 from chap 9 that you're
> referring to:
>
> "Actually the issue before him was not whether there should be a
> metaphysics of Quality or not. There already _is_ a metaphysics of
> quality. A subject-object metaphysics _is_ in fact a metaphysics in
> which the first division of Quality -- the first slice of undivided
> experience -- is into subjects and objects."
>
> The "first slice of undivided experience" refers to the "first division
> of Quality" not Quality itself. Actually Pirsig's sentence is ambiguous
> but it's clear from the rest of the paragraph that that's what he meant.
> Quality is the undivided experience, it's the subject-object division
> that is the first slice.
>
> >That is to say immediate experience BEFORE any division the mind may
make before internal or >external states.
>
> Yes, it's experience before division, but it's also experience after
> division. These are different types of Quality but they are still both
> Quality.
>
> (The rest of that paragraph reads:
> "Once you have made that slice, all of human experience is supposed to
> fit into one of these two boxes. The trouble is, it doesn't. What he had
> seen is that there is a metaphysical box that sits above these two
> boxes, Quality itself. And once he'd seen this he also saw a huge number
> of ways in which Quality can be divided. Subjects and objects are just
> one of the ways")
>
>
>
> >From me
> >Quality is reality.
>
> Well obviously I like my own principle.
>
>
>
> >From Platt
> >The Quality Principle. Quality is an immanent and transcendent moral
> >force. It created and gave purpose to our world, motivated by the
ethical principle of the
> >"Good" which is its essence. Quality is synonymous with "morality" and
"value." Thus, the
> >world is primarily a moral order, consisting not of subjects (mental
things) and objects
> >(material things) but patterns of value.
>
> But I like Platt's too. To say that Quality is merely reality might be
> accurate but if you become too general you can end up not saying
> anything at all. Platt is right that the essence of quality is good -
> that should be stated.
>
> I've made some changes to Platt's principle for the following reasons:
>
> * It doesn't mention the everythingness of quality. I still feel that
> this is the first thing that has to be said.
>
> * It's a bit complicated. I agree that Quality is simultaneously
> immanent and transcendental moral force ie it's what's happening now and
> it's what's pulling us forward, but is it really necessary to mention
> that right up front. I would have thought that Dynamic quality is the
> transcendental force, so that should be mentioned in a principle about
> Dynamic quality and not here.
>
> * I'm not sure if we need to mention subjects and objects and patterns
> of value. That bit is more of an explanation of the principle rather
> than the principle itself.
>
> * I've changed "motivated by the ethical principle of the Good" to
> Quality IS the ethical principle of the "Good".
>
> * If we say that Quality is the ethical principle of the Good, then
> doesn't that already imply a purpose? If so then we don't have to also
> say that Quality gives purpose to the world.
>
> * I've used "reality" instead of the "world". The "world" may imply that
> the MoQ is limited to this planet.
>
>
>
>
> Here's my revised principle of Quality:
>
> Quality is both reality and the force that creates reality. Quality is
> the ethical principle of the "Good". Thus, reality is a moral order.
>
>
> Comments anyone?
>
> Diana
>
>
> --
> post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>
Diana and LS,
I have not lived with Pirsig's ideas long enough to be fully comfortable
with them but I have some current ideas which I need to express in the hope
that I can generate some criticism that will help me. My ideas follow:
Pirsig is saying that morality is defined by our current understanding of
the operation of the universe. Morality and "the good" are to be defined in
terms of what is good for the Universe in which we are embedded, not
necessarily by what we consider to be moral and good in terms of our own
species.
Our individual "Truths" will be generated by the current content of our
Static Patterns of Value and will be different for each individual.
These "Truths", or static values, will generate a set of probabilities
which will influence the selection by Dynamic Quality of those portions of
our ongoing "sea of awareness" of which we become aware and which will
enter our consciousness.
This precognitive selection process which results from our current
"truths" is what Pirsig calls Dynamic Quality.
Once we become aware of these precognitive selections Static Quality
classifies them and assigns them to their proper Static Pattern of Value.
Our individual Static Patterns of Value then present another set of
probabilities to our ongoing sea of awareness on which Dynamic Quality will
again operate.
This is a continuing process.
In this view the truth and reality OF WHICH WE ARE AWARE is generated by
our Static Patterns of Value.
The preconditions for our understanding of truth and reality will be set
by the operation of Dynamic Quality which has, in turn, been influenced by
our current concepts of those truths and realities as contained in our
Static Patterns of Value.
This is a circular process which results in a continuous growth in our
level of understanding.
To my mind we can assign this same Quality and Value process, at the
appropriate value levels, to at least some of the lower animals. This would
seem appropriate because the Values and Morals we are considering are not
solely human values and morals but apply from the viewpoint of the
Universe.
From this corner I have talked myself into I now have to come up with a
definition of Dynamic Quality.
Dynamic Quality is a preconscious continuing force toward a complete
understanding of our personal situation in the Universe guided and informed
by our current static understanding of that situation.
This brought to mind something from ZMM. P245
Quality is the continuing stimulus which our environment puts on us to
create the world in which we live. All of it. Every last bit of it.
About the same thing except that mine is less poetic. Thanks, Ken
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:37 CEST