First thank you all for these very enlightening discussions, what a
wonderful resource! My intent had been to use these resources on a "read
only" basis but questions keep arising. It is my hope that they aren't too
elementary - and I try to search the archives to see if they have been
repeatedly answered..
I've just finished my second reading of ZMM (for me a "reading" means lots
of going back and re-reading). The first was when it was originally
published and I apparently wasn't ready for some of the concepts at that
time, I am now reading "Lila" and trying to get a handle on the MOQ. Some
background which I hope will allow my questions to make sense:
In my original reading back in the 70's I was mildly aware that we never
knew the identity of Mr. Pirsig's mount. I could tell that it was a vertical
twin from some of his descriptions and assumed it to be what I had been
driving during those times, some form of British twin readily available in
the US:: Triumph; BSA or Norton. This didn't carry much importance and still
doesn't beyond the questions brought to me (below).
During my recent second reading this mystery came a bit more to the fore.
The Sutherlands' machine is identified as a BMW and the narrator
acknowledges it to be a quality machine, but the machine upon which he and
Chris were borne was still unidentified. The Googling that brought me to
MOQ.org also produced a photo of the Pirsigs ... astride an early Honda
twin.
My first reaction to this revelation was "I wonder why he passed up an
opportunity to use his Honda as an object lesson in quality?". Those early
Hondas initiated a paradigm shift in the quality levels expected of mass
produced motorcycles. The easily available cycles in the States during the
60's were the British machines, Harley Davidsons, Beemers and a smattering
of small bikes from Puch, Zundapp and the like - all lacking in basic
quality with the exception of the BMW's.
*
*After quick thought it occurred to me that the reason for Mr. Pirsig's
failure to identify his machine may have been the fact that the perception
of Japanese machines at that time was roughly analogous to that of Chinese
machines today: The Japanese were beginning the production of quality
equipment. The overall perception of Japanese products in the States,
however, was that of "cheap junk". I thought that perhaps this general
perception kept the identity of the Pirsig's ride in secrecy.
While I'm curious as to the real reason for this omission and welcome new
knowledge, this line of thinking launched me into considerations of quality
and value in rather pedestrian terms and since I am grappling with these
terms as they relate to the MOQ, I hope that you can place them in this
context for me:
I have always used the terms "quality" and "value" in those sort of old
fashioned, material senses, basically "well crafted" and "high bang for the
buck" respectively.
Considering the possibility that Mr. Pirsig didn't wish to dilute his
arguments by trumpeting the high quality of something (the Honda) that most
may have considered a "cheap" machine forced me to think about the Super
Hawk vs. the Beemer.
Salient details about the Beemer are missing as well but my assumption was
(is) that it was probably a 1960's vintage R-60. If you will indulge me this
assumption then:
My first thought was "Lord, a long cross country trip on that little Honda
with two people???". But on reflection, I realized that although the Honda's
exhaust volume was roughly half that of the BMW, performance was really
pretty equivalent. Those Beemers were always very flat and quite low "zip"
for the displacement. The Hondas were relatively highly tuned and were
capable of the same top speed (90 mph-ish).
Not wanting to start "Ford-Chevy" arguments but when I think about them the
Honda 305 Super Hawk and the BMW R60/2 are really pretty comparable: both
in quality and performance. Given a modicum of care they would both run
almost indefinitely. They would go down the road in very similar manners.
Both lacked the designed-in flaws and sloppy manufacturing of the American
and British bikes of the day. The one big difference between them was the
purchase price. Here comes my question ("at last" says everyone reading
this).
If these two machines were roughly equivalent why would people pay a much
higher price for the BMW and regard it as a better machine? What I am
getting at is that (in my mind at least) there are two versions of quality
at work here: (what I would call) "real" quality - good engineering, careful
manufacture, performance and satisfaction delivered by the machines versus
the "perceived" quality - that which would get people off their wallets:
German quality engineering vs. Japanese "junk".
To me, if the "real" quality is vaguely equivalent and one (Honda) costs
much less, then that lower priced machine has a much higher value ... and
yes I am aware of the potentially Jamesian slippery slope of couching things
within this monetary framework.
All of this is to ask: Where do my two qualities fit within the MOQ? Is my
"perceived quality" a static latch? e.g. if all other factors are equal, we
will select the Beemer because they have always been "quality" and the
Japanese have always been "junk"? Where (if anywhere) does my "real quality"
fit within your framework?
Once again I hope that these questions aren't too elementary. As I read I'd
like to see where my avenues of thinking lie in relation to the MOQ. All
thoughts will be much appreciated.
-Alec
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/md/archives.html
