[Akshay] I don't think that ZMM is such an important book (so with the case of Lila) -- I just don't think Pirsig is the center of "his philosophy" of Quality. Whitehead is a brilliant philosopher who makes a much better attempt at writing philosophy than Pirsig.
Initially, I didn't think of Quality or Value as in the sense of goodness or virtue -- I simply thought of it within the "scientific" framework (where it means characteristic), since characteristics are the "groundstuff" of the "world". When Pirsig talks about Quality, I interpret it Quality as preference. Organic molecules "chose" to evolve over millions of years to form animals. When I accept this fact, the famous "why did this happen?" question comes up which ultimately opens up the question of the purpose of the universe. Quality, I think, is just a sort of replacement for the word purpose, because why would something happen if it didn't have purpose; or in a more Pirsigian way, "it happened because it was Better". So, the Metaphysics of Quality to me is nothing greater than the four-fold classification of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual patterns with a mix of dynamic- and static- ness that maintains Order. This is parallel to the yin-yang principle. (Note how dynamicness is only a characteristic of a particular type of pattern) Pirsig would probably laugh this off, but maybe I need time to evolve to the truth of the MoQ (if it has truth at all); until then, that is my belief. On another note, I don't fully accept the "metaphysics" part of the MoQ, because I don't see it as "The Philosophy", it's only a good intellectual tool. [Ron] Ashkay, I tend to agree with most of the above, although I have not read whitehead yet. I've spent some Time collecting snipetts from various sources, some from Pirsig some from an article on american Pragmatists at www.robertpirsig.org all having to do with "betterness". "Good is conformity to an established pattern of fixed values and value objects. Lila 119 Regarding dynamic quality, its place in Pirsig's moral system is quite simple; it is the good. The more dynamic a static pattern is, the better.. .the more moral it is. In terms of static patterns the dynamic represents freedom from other static patterns (Pirsig, 1991, 307). Dewey's equivalent concept is that of adaptation to the environment. Life, for Dewey, is growth, not growth toward an end, (but growth as an end in itself. The ability to adapt (for Pirsig - the dynamic aspect of a static biological pattern) is that which enables growth (Thayer, 1973, 119), thus he says The process of growth, of improvement and progress rather than the static outcome and result, becomes the significant thing. Not health as an end fixed once for all, but the needed improvement in health - a continual process - is the end and good. The end is no longer a terminus or limit to be reached. It is the active process of transforming the existent situation. Not perfection as a final goal, but the ever-enduring process of perfecting, maturing, refining is the aim of living. Honesty, industry, temperance, justice, like health, wealth and learning, are not goods to be possessed as they would be if they expressed fixed ends to be attained. They are directions of change in the quality of experience. Growth itself is the only moral "end." (Dewey, 1920, in Thayer, 1973, 142) When Pirsig states that: All life is a migration of static patterns of quality toward Dynamic Quality. (Pirsig, 1991, 143) he means precisely what Dewey meant. Dynamic quality is an end, the end toward which life is heading, but, by definition, it is not a fixed, static end. It is change itself that life moves toward. Does Pirsig mean the same thing by 'dynamic quality' as Dewey's emphasis on 'growth'? If we now turn to Pirsig's concept of evolution we will see that he does, and that they agree entirely upon what is the only moral "end." In a metaphysics based on 'substance' change can only be explained as the effect of a prior cause. Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality replaces 'cause' with 'value' (Pirsig, 1991, 107) and so reverses the picture; For Pirsig the supreme good is actually dynamic quality, but, in terms of static patterns of quality - of things that exist in the world, he would agree entirely with Peirce; in terms of static patterns evolution is morality. However they disagree upon the nature of that process - Pirsig agrees with Dewey that there is no fixed end but only continuous change (or - growth). " 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/
