A web of Quality confusion

Of all of Phaedrus/Pirsig N.’s philosophical meanderings, the discussion of Quality frustrated me the most.

Although I feel as if I somewhat understand the idea he’s trying to explain, I admittedly don’t find it to be as earth shifting or revelatory as Pirsig does. I was actually quite frustrated with the Quality section of the book (although a lot of Pirsig’s points are rooted in the concepts described therein) and was excited when it was over. Although the notion of indefinable quality is quite profound, I’m not sure it can be placed on a holy trinity pedestal of concepts that define existence. He really lost my romantic/groovy brain when he began to take out the knife and chop an already ambiguous concept into smaller pieces and organize it into a flow chart.

Complaints aside, I found myself wandering what I would write if I had to sit and describe how I would define quality; what would I write if I had been a frightened and confused freshman student in Phaedrus’ philosophy class?

First, I thought that perhaps Quality could be defined by its widely accepted dictionary definition, as how close an object comes to the ideal version of that particular object; how close something comes to perfection. But then, how do we define perfection, or excellence? How do we all simply know this ideal that an object is striving towards?

I then wondered: How would we know if a completely new invention, an innovation was Quality, if it deviated from the original, if no standard of excellence existed to measure it against?

I get caught up in Pirsig’s attempt to make generalities out of concepts that aren’t necessarily universal. I’m not sure if the blanket term Quality can be prescribed to all things; it can have a wide variety of meanings and connotations in different contexts. For example: The Quality of a romantic relationship differs from than the Quality of a cup of coffee; the Quality of a sandwich differs from the Quality of a sports car. The qualities that determine *Quality* in each object and idea are unique to that particular object.

But, thinking about it—I  immediately digress. My idea folds back on itself; we actually do perceive it and recognize it in all things and ideas, so although Quality in different objects has to meet a different criteria, there still is a criteria of Quality that we all recognize. I know, you know, what constitutes a successful romantic relationship: trust, communication, physical connection, closeness, love, etc. We can a relationship with these attributes is Quality.

Well, shit, I’m stuck again.

(I’m just thinking aloud here, bear with me. I was also surprised that Phaedrus doesn’t speculate whether or not a priori objects have Quality; it would have been interesting to here how he tangoed with that one…)

How strange, that Quality isn’t exactly subjective. It isn’t at all, “just what you like,” unless that “you” is exchanged for a collective “we.” We all perceive it in some way. Perhaps quality is rooted in empathy…and although I could try, I can’t even begin to speculate where this shared sense “comes from.”

I agree with Angeli, in that one person cannot possibly determine Quality. But if not, who creates it? I think she’s really getting at something when she says that Quality fulfills some sort of an intrinsic human need.