The critic views a work of art from an intellectual point of view, and hence decides what is good and what is bad based on intellectual quality. For example, to choose between an original manuscript of Sir Isaac Newton and a regular textbook of physics (Feynman or Walker, for example), socially I am inclined to buy the former, but intellectually I am inclined to buy the latter, not considering the huge difference in the price I have to pay. The critic will say that choosing to buy Newton's manuscript was not a good idea, because it is not of quality for study of physics. An ordinary person won't care about the physics, he'll simply buy Newton's manuscript, probably for showing off to his friends.
The example you gave about the critic clearly shows that he is unable to devote completely to either social or intellectual patterns. He wants to stay stable socially and intellectually. I'm not saying that this is impossible, but there are fields where the two are against each other. The conclusion, therefore, is that you cannot say whether what the critic thinks has value or what an ordinary person thinks has value is the one with "the real value". Both of them admire the work equally, only from different points of view. Of course, in Pirsig's scheme, the ordinary person liking Dan Brown is a lower form of evolution than a critic recommending War and Peace. The question of objectively measuring Quality comes only in the context of intellectual patterns of SQ, because it itself creates such notions, although for the right reasons (of standardisation, accuracy and portability). One of the most obvious ways of measuring Quality is by examining its effects (pragmatism and consequentialism). In this way, yes, there are specific standard rules for measuring Quality that cannot be dismissed by "just because you like it". In the example you mentioned (of Tolstoy's work being the superior tome), this is a field (literature) where such standard rules cannot be ascertained. Which poetic meter is better than the other? Mere poetic meter is not better or worse, but if it is applied to another field, such comparison can be made. If a poetic meter teaches arithmetic progression to a middle-schooler, then the poem is better than any other random poem. Akshay On 01/12/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Pirsig only concludes that Quality is basically existence after he's > convinced himself that it exists. If Quality does not exist, the rest > of his theory > is invalid. It's like saying God is equivalent to existence; therefore, > God > exists. > > To clarify my point: if we like certain things more because we recognize > more Quality in them, i.e., because our experiences help us relate to > these > objects, then why do art connoisseurs differentiate between what's > "good" and > what they "like?" For example, a critic might concede that, when > it's all said > and done, "War and Peace" is the superior text, but what the heck, > he likes > that mainstream Dan Brown book more. If he doesn't personally > find "Quality" > in "War and Peace," he should dismiss it outright, but he doesn't. He > finds > something in there that he doesn't relate to, so it's not a favorite, but > he > appreciates its "value." On the other hand, a casual reader might say, > "War > and Peace" bores me, so I don't like it. It's not good." How do you > reconcile this? Is the critic's opinion more valid simply because he > knows more > about literature? > > But say there is no such thing as Quality (we're leaving the question of > existence and reality aside for the time being). The critic and > casual reader > will still appreciate their favored texts for the same reasons, > namely, that > they like the texts. They can identify with the books. However, the > critic > admires the historical importance of the Tolstoy book. He can point out > the > precise form it's written in and he can analyze the manner in which the > author > utilizes his language. He will then conclude that, based on these > (arbitrary) literary criteria, that it is, in fact, the superior > tome. This has > nothing to do with any objective "quality," only the objective criteria > set down > by the literary world. > > In the latter scenario, Quality cannot be removed from the world because > it's simply not there. It sounds like trivia, but it seems that > what Pirsig's > attempting to do on page 193 of ZMM. "If you can't distinguish between > good > and bad in the arts they disappear." That's not any intrinsic "quality" > he's > subtracting from the world, but rather man's capability to decide what he > likes and what he does not like, or what he appreciates versus what he > doesn't. > > > > >This isn't a valid question at all; this is realised as soon as > you analyse > >the question. Quality is simply another name for Existence, because you > >start all of philosophic inquiry with one assumption, that of Existence. > >herefore, it is like asking "does existence exist?". > > > > **************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's > hottest > products. > (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001) > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
