Troy Becker (tbecker@gonzaga.edu)
Mon, 3 Aug 1998 05:12:07 +0100
i read around and thought that the explanation of the four levels of
quality was too weighty.
+ inorganic quality is a pattern that hasn't seceded into life.
+ biologic quality are patterns in life that you can think of as
plantlike: birth, eating, breathing, reproducing, dying. biologic
quality has not seceded into social quality.
+ social quality is simply the relationships between biologic quality.
there is social quality between a gardener and his vegetables. there is
social quality between a firm and one of its employees. there is social
quality between two citizens in the same nation. social quality has not
seceded into intellectual quality.
+ intellectual quality is the cognizance between one and one's self.
we big-brained humans know about intellect. but so does a dog that know
it doesn't "like" its master to beat it. that would be a good example
of a society-intellectual quality shift. the dog and the master compose
a social quality. the dog and its "feelings" compose an intellectual
quality. oh, what a cold example. although similar to the dog's
feelings, human intellect is more complex.
may i add that the shift from static to dynamic, in any level of
quality, is "spiritual" quality. it's hard for me to order
"intellectual quality" as a greater good than "inorganic quality", since
a pattern (inorganic quality) purely arises out of chaos. that
spiritual, dynamic shift from static chaotic quality to inorganic
quality is absolutely beautiful. Pirsig (and Maggie?) order the four
levels of quality to point out the "evolution" of dynamic quality. but
note: any static break toward dynamic quality has more value than static
quality at even the intellectual level.
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:37 CEST