: "With the Metaphysics of Quality, Pirsig proposes a 'Copernican
Revolution'
: in our understanding of reality, placing undefined value at the center and
: dividing it into static and Dynamic Quality. How are those of us still
: mired in a subject-object view of the world to wrap our minds around this
: transformation? Is this static-dynamic split merely an epistemic
: convenience that we make arbitrarily or is it an ontological reality,
: transcending our thoughts and intellectual description of it?"
This questions seems to be whether Pirsig meant what he said or not.
Although a good question for Pirsig to ask himself, I think we must
conclude Pirsig didn't merely believe in quality because it was convient,
but because he really believed.
I vote "Nay."
But I don't wish to be pessimistic and I will propose another option.
I have pondered a lot about Pirsig's place amidst the fight between
modernity and postmodernity, between structualism and post-structuralism. I
have often thought about what Pirsig would say in that classic debate
between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault. Chomsky advocated modernity
claiming we need morality to legitimize our actions and justice is the
highest ideal of society. Foucault advocated postmodernity claining that
despite our need of it, morality doesn't exists and that society defines
its highest ideal as its wished. How would Pirsig unite modernity and
postmodernity. It seems he couldn't appease the moderns because of his
reliance on experience instead of logic and he couldn't appease the
postmoderns because of his acceptance of a universal morality instead of
particular morality. Perhaps this is covered ground.
Sincerely,
Kevin Sanchez
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:35 GMT