i was readin the book… Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance By Robert Pirsig, and one of the characters is faced with the problem of defining Quality in thought and statement… this prompted me to start the exploration of my own, and am getting nowhere, would any one like to join me???
Perhaps he is discussing the ability to clearly communicate one’s thoughts, and if those thought are worth communicating. “The sky is blue” would probably not be worth communicating. However, what causes the sky’s blueness for our sight might be worthwhile. Why do scientists believe horses cannot see color? Then a discussion regarding the research findings.
I am very tired, and hope this is clear.
Smiles,
aspacia 
im not exactly sure, but almost anything in the philisophical world could be true… but…
the context in which it occured in the book was that the “professor” was aproached by another and she asked him if he was teaching Quality to his students… this got to him, and he actually went insane because he tried to figure out what exactly she ment with the word Quality… i know this isn’t exatcly clear but I am kind of new to the philosophy world… im a senior in high school… but i did go to the extent of creating the first philosophy club in my school which actually promts my next question… does anyone have any thing that could help me prompt some discussions in the club setting???
[/quote]
I think Pirsig completely drops the ball in chapter 20.
At the moment in which he equates Quality with reality (specifically the diagram on page 253 of the Perennial Classic edition), the entire meditation falls apart.
From that point on we can expect to substitute his ‘Quality’ with ‘reality’ in the text and understand that we’re talking about the same thing. The result, unfortuantely, leads to sentences like, ‘Quality is the continuing stimulus which our environment puts upon us to create the world in which we live. All of it. Every last bit of it’ - having no significance at all (255). In other words, that reality ‘is the continuing stimulus which our environment puts upon us to create the world’ is a matter of fact, isn’t it? His use of the term ‘Quality’ to represent something more than reality is rendered moot, and the entire discussion becomes almost futile.
Add to this Phaedrus, just a few pages later, in fact goes insane when he recognizes his conception of Quality can be substituted at will with the Tao of the Tao Te Ching, the inference being the Tao is in fact synonymous with ‘reality’ as well.
Pirsig continues, ‘He was no longer talking about a metaphysical trinity but an absolute monism. Quality was the source and substance of everything’ (ibid). Again, reality ‘was the source and substance of everything’.
So what?
Phaedrus’ insanity can thus be blamed on his recognition that what he had considered an original and conclusive thesis was to be found in the Tao Te Ching? That ‘God’, the Tao, ‘reality’. ‘existence’ and the other ultra-ambiguities that permeate metaphysics and mysticism all mean the same thing?
NO SHIT, SHERLOCK!
…
The book is a nice read, full of vivid imagery and some fairly deep philosophical content - but don’t take it too seriously.
An interesting question. If you are still around after the holidays, i will attempt a rather extensive answer as to what this category of being is.
I’m not convinced that that’s an interesting question. After all, there’s no such thing as a correct definition, or an incorrect definition. So the search for a definition isn’t the search for outside truth, like in mathematics - rather, it’s an introspection to try to precisely define an imprecise feeling or reaction.
But “quality” is generally just a term we use to imply the ability to rank the worth of something as higher or lower. High quality, low quality. If it means something sufficiently different to you so that you need to do some soul-searching to arrive at a definition, there’s a very good chance that it won’t be a definition that many of us will intuitively agree with. You will have arrived at a truth that is internal - specific to you, and perhaps shared by some others, but not generalizable to all people.
Quality can be best considered, I think, when looking at those of the personality of someone else. At first glance they may appear to be indicators of rank but that’s circular as that rank is based on the original person’s own qualities themselves.
There is a material chaser that’s thrown in with a lot of quality talk, one I think we should do without. “Oh that car is in better quality than this one”. Why because it’s shiny? What if the shitty looking one was built before they realized making cars which run too well puts one out of business? Perhaps it would be more logical to say 'it has the quality of being more aesthetically pleasing to someone whose aesthetic system revolves around symmetry and uniformity.
Isn’t quality simply the output of the realization that you are considering the nature of a concept?
I too have read ‘Zen and the Art of MM’ and found it to be quite interesting.
In fact, I still have my copy after all these years. It’s been quite a while
since I last read it, but I also was surprised with the equating of Quality
with Tao. It seemed an elegant solution at the time, but now I’m not so
sure. For the sake of philosophy, if nothing else, we ought to be able to
come up with a more pragmatic and sensible definition than that!
.
On 18Dec06 Old_Gobbo wrote: [snip] … Isn’t quality simply the output
of the realization that you are considering the nature of a concept?
.
Say what? Can you translate that into plain English for me?
.
Don’t know much about … Qual-it-y
.
But I do know that there’s nothing “simply” about it. In fact, we can’t even
reduce it to the plane of individual subjectivity. Whatever Quality is, it’s much
bigger than any two or three philosophers!
In Zen and the art of MM it brought up the argument if Quality even exists… At first the character trys to define it by saying
But then if you can’t define what something is does it really exist???
The answer to this is based from the philisophical thought of realism… “A thing exists if a world without it can’t function normally.” If we show that a world without Quality functions abnormally, then we know that Quality exists regardless if its defined or not…
So we know that Quality exists, but we can’t explain what it is…
Thats as far as I have gotten so far…
[/quote]
Quality = Truth.
Quality=A good steak. 
Beh, its debatable. Quality to me is when i see a bunch of stuff, and something out of it’s performance to me is better than the rest.
A “quality” performance.
A “quality” suite.
A “quality” teacher/mentor/leader.
Quality?
So it has aspects which are superior to the norm, perhaps.
What is the norm?
Well, I’d say the part of the continuum where people accept a certain standard, and stay there.
“The masses” if you may.
How do you get quality?
Rise above “the masses”.
Perhaps.
.
kingdaddy wrote: Quality = Truth
.
tx say: Sorry, kingdaddy, but “Quality = Truth” is NOT an acceptable
definition. It is not acceptable because it is not an adequate definition.
In fact it is not a definition at all, it is simply an affirmation of identity.
And even at that, it is still incorrect because Truth does not equal
Quality. I would even go so far as to say that Quality cannot be reduced
to anything else. It is a unique and apparently vital aspect or attribute
of the cosmos and/or the mind. Just because “scientific” philosophers
can’t define it doesn’t mean that it’s really something else …
.
Is there Quality without Truth?
Is there Quality in something False?
I just wish to interject at one point here.
I believe when “Phaedrus” goes “insane” he is actually attaining a certain level of enlightenment. His cessation of struggle after all those years, his sheer ecstasy at the moment, and his change of character all point to the struggle of Romanticism vs. Classical thought. In the Romantic thought he would be a sage, while in Classical thought he is insane. But that is just what I believe.
.
On 22Dec06 kingdaddy replied: Is there Quality without Truth?
.
tx say: Truth may indeed be associated with Quality, but that does not
really tell us much about the nature or essence of Quality. Although
Truth is, in many ways, a value-judgment made by Mind, it is largely a
purely intellectual thing. Of course, Quality is also a value-judgment,
but it is (I believe) more closely connected with perception and
personality, than to intellect as such. To put it another way, Quality is
a reflection or emanation of the whole mind of any indivdual person,
whereas Truth is chiefly the preserve of intellect (and so has little to do
with personality). Now I’m not sure if you can appreciate the distinction
I am trying to make here, but I am certain that it is the key to unlocking
the mystery surrounding Quality.
.
Is there Quality in something False?
.
Yes, I do think that is possible. For example, I was watching a show
the other day about this old guy from Canada who became slightly
unhinged after discovering that his wife was cheating on him. Anyway,
he went to the US and embarked upon a career of conning money out
of sweet old ladies. He did it by becoming their ‘significant other’. He
romanced them until he could get at their wealth, helped himself to
whatever was available, and then left them to search out a new victim.
Now you could say that the man was a terrible fraud and swindler, and
you’d be right; but you’d also be missing the point. This man IS charming
and friendly and fun to talk to and be with. None of that is fake. It’s all
genuine aspects of the man’s personality. It’s only his motives that are
immoral and anti-social. Here again it’s a subtle distinction that I am
trying to make here; but a real one nonetheless.
Neither does the word Quality, it’s a general term with many shades but all must fit the criteria to be considered Quality. I think you making too much out of such a simple concept, quality is not a difficult word once you find the foundation and that foundation is Truth.
I have no idea why you think this example is any proof of quality in something false, you’ve explained the story well enough but you forgot to add why and where the so called quality is. Do you actually believe if someone is charming on the outside that this is some form of Quality, can their be Quality in deception? If so, maybe you need to consider that good intent is what makes Truth when considering a human choice. Being nice and cordial to someone so you can gain their confidence and swindle them out of money is in no way by anyone’s definition that I know of considered Quality, it’s simply deceiving for personal gain.
Bad (false) example IMO.
]–> ILovePhilosophy.com Discussion Forums > Philosophy
]–> Post subject → Re: Define Quality / Part Four
.
“In actual fact, we start by feeling certainty about all sorts of things,
and we surrender this feeling only where some definite argument has
convinced us that it is liable to lead to error. When we find any class of
primitive certainties which never leads to error, we retain our convictions
in regard to this class. That is to say, wherever we feel initial certainty,
we require an argument to make us doubt, not an argument to make us
believe. We may therefore take, as the basis of our beliefs, any class of
primitive certainties which cannot be shown to lead us into error. This
is really what Descartes does, though he is not clear about himself.
Moreover, when we have found an error in something of which we were
previously certain, we do not as a rule abandon entirely the belief which
mislead us, but we seek, if we can, to modify it so that it shall no longer
be demonstrably false.” – Bertrand Russell, from Chapter 16: Self-
Observation, Part Three: Man From Within, in ‘An Outline of Philosophy’
.
On 22Dec06 kingdaddy replied: Is there Quality without Truth?
.
tx say: Truth may indeed be associated with Quality, but that does
not really tell us much about the nature or essence of Quality.
.
On 28Dec06 kingdaddy wrote: Neither does the word Quality, it’s a
general term with many shades, but all must fit the criteria to be
considered Quality. I think you’re making too much out of such a simple
concept; quality is not a difficult word once you find the foundation,
and that foundation is Truth.
.
tx say: Russell also makes much out of the fact that words are GENERAL in
essence and nature and function. This means that words don’t really provide
the specifics and particulars of any given event or occasion. They give SOME
information, but hardly more than a small fraction of what could be given.
This is doubtless why “defining quality” is such a bizarre and thankless
occupation; for Quality lurks in the very concrete and particular (real-world)
details. This, coupled to the knowledge that ‘quality’ is actually a very subtle
and complex concept, shows us why the motorcycle mechanic had such a
rough ride with IT right on the back seat there with him.
.
Russell also makes much out of the idea that no two people can see the
same event in quite the same way. If that is so, then it is a terrible blow to
Dialogue (and thus to Quality too); but, fortunately, Russell way over-stresses
the significance of this physical and objective “flaw” in human perception. This
is because many of the things we see are social entities (eg. a football game),
which is only to say that we routinely see objects which are MORE complex
than any simple material object (such as my pen here).
.
In terms of physics and logic, no two people can have seen exactly the
same sets of sense-data that a football game produces, but no one would
even dare think to say that ALL of the fans didn’t see the SAME game.
This is because football (like a great deal of human reality) is a shared
reality. Therefore Quality, if it is anything at all, is also a part of that portion
of Reality that is shared among human beings. Now scientists work in a self-
imposed vacuum because the numbers prefer it that way; but numbers are
incapable of capturing something so elusive (and almost spiritual) as Quality.
This is why scientific-philosophers cannot crack the nut that is the foggy and
ill-defined concept known as Quality.
.
Take that Russell quote at the top, for example. Each and every word it
is composed of is a “general term with many shades”, as indeed all words
are. And as isolated individual words they are necessarily limited, imprecise,
misleading, and so on. However, when you put them together in just this
particular way they form a coherent and complex whole that is anything but
unclear. Moreover, this particular string of words is fairly oozing with both
Truth AND Quality. The truth of it ought to be apparent to any worthy
philosopher, but the quality of the quote may not be so apparent.
.
So there are basically two forms of philosophical literature: the monologue
narrative (which is just a string of thoughts, one following after another),
and the dialogue. Now obviously dialogue is the more lively and dynamic of
the two forms, but the meditative narrative has nevertheless been the most
popular form for many centuries (maybe even since Aristotle). However,
thanks to the Net and its myriad forums, dialogue is making a comeback,
even in Philosophy. This is good news for me because I am essentially a
Socratic-type philosopher who (like master Socrates) believes that two heads
are better than one. Two heads = two brains = two minds. Two (or more)
philosophical minds working together on the same problem, on the same
sets of questions and answers, is more likely to focus on the essence and
excellence of any given question … such as ‘What is Quality?’ Therefore I
believe that dialogue is the best way to go about answering such a question.
After all, asking questions and trying to answer those questions logically
AND rationally is what Philosophy is all about!
.
Anyway, if I’m hearing you correctly, kingdaddy, your claim is that the quality
of this Russell quote resolves into, and stems from, its high level of truth
content. But in fact, this is not the case. Believe me when I say that
literature is a lot more complex than your simple notion allows for … that is
to say, A LOT! This is especially obvious in this case of our Russell quote
above, which is a minor masterpiece of philosophical thinking at its finest, a
little mini-essay that is complete and perfect in itself. But the truth it holds
is only one aspect, one portion if you will, of its overall quality. This analysis
also effectively demonstrates that your notion that Quality = Truth is
inadequate and untrue, and therefore false. If this proof cannot convince you
to give up that erroneous notion, then I fear nothing can.
.
kd: Is there Quality in something False?
.
tx: Yes, I do think that is possible. For example, I was watching a show
the other day about this old guy from Canada who became slightly
unhinged after discovering that his wife was cheating on him. Anyway,
he went to the US and embarked upon a career of conning money out
of sweet old ladies. He did it by becoming their ‘significant other’. He
romanced them until he could get at their wealth, helped himself to
whatever was available, and then left them to search out a new victim.
Now you could say that the man was a terrible fraud and swindler, and
you’d be right; but you’d also be missing the point. This man IS charming
and friendly and fun to talk to and be with. None of that is fake. It’s all
genuine aspects of the man’s personality. It’s only his motives that are
immoral and anti-social. Here again it’s a subtle distinction that I am
trying to make here; but a real one nonetheless.
.
kd: I have no idea why you think this example is any proof of quality in
something false. You’ve explained the story well enough but you forgot
to add why and where the so called quality is. Do you actually believe if
someone is charming on the outside that this is some form of Quality? Can
there be Quality in deception? If so, maybe you need to consider that good
intent is what makes Truth when considering a human choice. Being nice
and cordial to someone so you can gain their confidence and swindle them
out of money is in no way by anyone’s definition that I know of considered
Quality, it’s simply deceiving for personal gain. Bad (false) example IMO.
.
kingdaddy asked if Quality could ever be associated with Falsity, and I
answered by providing a very concrete and particular real-world example of just
that. But now kingdaddy rejects this as a false example. He does this BECAUSE
his notion that Quality = Truth in and of itself disallows even the possibility of
Quality being tied to Falsity. Thus when you begin with the “knowledge” that
Quality = Truth, then such an example as the one given above must necessarily
be regarded as a logical non-sequetor. It simply does not compute. And when
faced with something that does not compute, something that does not add up,
our natural reaction is to just dismiss it outright, and then zealously ignore it for
as long as possible. And this is what kingdaddy does, because our example not
only shows that Quality CAN be linked with Falsity, but also demonstrates that
Quality is NOT causally or essentially connected with Truth.
.
Thus Quality appears to be primarily a matter of perception. There are
different degrees or levels of perception. It’s all about awareness, knowledge,
and just plain-old paying attention. Take ‘Yahoo Answers’, for example. On that
web-site, anyone can go and ask any question, and then just wait for other
people to offer their answers. Sometimes the asker asks a question and gets
lots of answers. Sometimes only a few. Later on, the asker can choose which of
the answers is best. But this project can be tricky if there are a lot of answers
to choose from. How do you choose which answer is the best? The word ‘best’
itself seems to imply a close connection to Quality: best - good → better →
best [here again there are various levels of quality]; of the highest quality or
excellence; most advantageous, suitable, or desirable; most fully; etc.
.
Which only throws the burden back upon: quality - typical or essential feature
or characteristic or nature (eg. its distinguishing quality); superior or high grade
of excellence. Since both words refer to another similar word, let us look at that:
excellence - superiority or worth; an excellent quality or feature. Well, obviously
the dictionary is only giving us the run around, and not really defining for us
what exactly ‘quality’ is. But it does tell us some things: quality is pervasive,
quality is ‘out there’, and quality can be seen. Sometimes it can be easily seen
by everyone (eg. a Porsche 944), and sometimes it can be very hard to see.
.
Thus our Yahoo asker may easily overlook the objectively “best” answer in
favor of another that, for example, tells a joke and makes the asker laugh. It
all depends on what the asker is looking for. Some askers look for the most
useful answer, and call that the best. Some askers look for the most detailed or
complete answer, and call that the best. And some askers are lazy, and simply
choose whatever answer they find most entertaining or comical, or most in
agreement with their own manner of thinking. The point here is that very very
few askers set out to deliberately and consciously seek out the answer with the
most quality (ie. the best answer). Quality is what the perceiver sees! The
Quality seen is a direct function of the Quality sought. Therefore, Quality-Vision
is a form of intellectual perception: the more you know, the more you see.
Quality, like Beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. AND it is also part of the
Real-World “out-there”. Quality is BOTH an objective and subjective reality!
And like Language, Quality-Vision is a learned behavior that can be exercised
and developed.
.
But in our pragmatic, money-oriented society, most people don’t even take
Quality seriously because it’s not something that can be easily quantified or
measured. If they think of it at all, it’s more of an afterthought than anything
else. Actually, Quality is NOT a concept; or rather, not merely a concept. I only
call it that because we have no choice but to treat it as if it were a concept,
because Quality, like thoughts and concepts, is chiefly a mental phenomena (ie.
a product of active and living minds). But Quality, like Philosophy, can be
defined in various ways, depending on what you want to do with it. A good
general definition of use to Philosophy might want to stress the active-process
aspect of Quality. So, for example, we could say that Quality IS Perception; or
rather, a very important form of perception. It is a “way of seeing” . . .
x
