Dear Squad,
Though it is late in the month and the topic is probably getting a little
'worn around the edges', I would like to say that I found John and Ruth's
recent post somewhat, er, "satisfying". (Finally!)
If Carmen and Kevin are right in saying "Power is the capability to value
Quality" then
>perhaps our debating quality leads to our valuing it more highly, and we
are empowered. But
>are they right? What they are saying seems a truism. If Quality is the
source of our valuing,
>our fundamental encounter with value in the world, then valuing is not
something we choose
>to do. It is there, as basic as the hot stove or the captivating song.
Ideas have quality, and I
>wonder if we can assume that the quality of ideas is essentially the same
as the quality in
>biological or social spheres. Is dynamic quality the same at each level, or
does it transform at
>each level, as the static qualities that support each level do?
This business of power (yes, it happens to be this month's topic) as it
relates to "The Almighty Mr. Quality" is distracting, complicating and
(ultimately) annoying. Pirsig's Quality is ambiguously (though not
confusingly) defined as both reality and good. If Pirsig's definition of
quality is taken (accepted) then we can't be in a situation where we are
"valuing quality". This being the case (the previous) there really isn't
much constructive use for "power" as outlined by Kevin and Carmen. So then,
where DOES "power" fit into things. I'll resort to my earlier position ---
which has received little if any support [:-(] --- that "power" is/equals
"gumption". That is, something that - by definition - everyone has AND is
required [gumption] to successfully break free of "value traps" (ZAMM).
That simple.
Remember Pirsig's first book was about motorcycle
maintenance................
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
