Oz - Part 1/4 Dan and I have been discussing terms that might be applied to the experience of dynamic quality. In short, to my suggestion of "irrational" Dan agreed there were senses in which in which it might apply. But he argued that the term carries negative baggage and I agree. I attempted to explain that my problem with the term Dynamic Quality is exactly that. It is loaded with baggage and in my view baggage whose contents are just as deceptive for being pleasant as irrational's are for seeming harsh. dmb jumped in agreeing on bags Dan and I had packed but suggesting that tinkering with the meaning or lack thereof Pirsig's terms, threatens to topple the edifice of the MoQ.
Without worrying about the nits left to be picked. And with hope that the account above is kinda sorta close maybe. And not all that concerned if it isn't. Let me just say this about that. I think we all agree that the Tao is "undefinable." But is it undescribable. I hope we all agree that when we look, we can see it. We experience it. Pirsig's whole point in Bozeman was that his students knew which papers had Quality and which didn't. All I can say, right here, right now, is what it looks like to me. Quick and dirty for me would be the balloon scene in "Oz the Great and Powerful." James Franco's, Oz rides the tornado much like Dorothy did. He ducks inside the balloon's basket as the detritus of Kansas is sucked from the earth and spun into the air. Jagged edges and spiked limbs shoot past, piercing the wicker. And then. All of a sudden there is calm. Oz rides a sweet spot. He is in the groove; in the flow. Random object float before him, weightless. The Wizard has time to flow between terror to wonder. As he reaches out to touch a bit of flotsam, he is slammed back into to side of his basket and once again hurled into the wind. There, I see Quality. A higgly-piggly punctuate by intermittent moments of suspension and wonder. Quality is in terror of the storm and the awe of its eye. As to the "textual evidence" produced to show the essential goodness of DQ. Let me offer what I think is the most compelling evidence for the utter ambiguity of DQ, the horror of it, its inexplicable attraction and repulsion. I offer the woman Lila. She is DQ. She is promiscuous, depressed and in the end a danger to herself and others. It is easy to read into both of Pirsig's tales a certain nobility in insanity. His madman sees the world as no one has before. His crazy bitch is a religion of one. Foucault sees madness as a social disease and Thomas Szasz claims it doesn't exist. It all sound lovely at a distance. But madness isn't imaginary. It is a living hell. And for, far too, many; death has seemed the better path. In her lucid moments Lila breaks up homes and sleeps her way across a continent . When we meet her, she is cleaning herself where, a man she thinks is dirty, "had been at her last night." Still she is hoping for a boat ride and a couple meals. She schemes to steal, smuggle and murder; she cycles through phases of indifference and absorption in every bad thing that has happened in a life full of bad things. And yet she has this Dynamic Quality Pirsig can never quite put his finger on. Only in fiction could Lila's Dynamic Quality seem noble, desirable, or mystical. But it is surely irrational, chaotic and terrifying. 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
