Diana McPartlin (diana@asiantravel.com)
Mon, 5 Jan 1998 14:17:33 +0100
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:37 CEST