Less definition, more a way to know?

In response to Megan, I want to parse this sentence: “It seems to me that some well-respected person out there once decided that some things were inherently better than others, voiced that opinion, and thereafter people agreed with them.”

I am caught on the notion that Quality is based on one individual perspective. If this person

If you don't know despair.com,
you're missing out.

existed, and we could analyze their process of determining Quality, would it not be revealed that their judgment was influenced and composed of numerous other perspectives? That the supreme words were not wholly original, but composed of a hundred other voices affecting the primary speaker? I cannot help but resist the idea that Quality in its entire complexion was determined by a single being.

I am tracking with Phaedrus’ mental conversation, even up to his epiphany-induced breakdown. Whatever truth was suddenly made clear in his mind caused his entire being to

“give way from under him” (p. 254.)  I believe the best way to analyze Quality is in its manifestations.  Although an instance offers but a partial view of the beliefs/values/qualities underlying it, these applications are the most numerous (and perhaps the only) glimpses we get to understand the forces beneath. Take a step outward—what happened to Phaedrus when he finally grasped true Quality? Mind = blown. Can any one of us entirely understand it, then? Will our internal fuses spontaneously combust like an overloaded outlet, if we understood the full force of Quality? Perhaps. We are but partial minds.

Back to the idea of knowledge through application. Pirsig is doing it quite nicely with a motorcycle metaphor. I need a better understanding of this Quality business, so I want to consider items to which the term “quality” has been given, and why. The immediate instance in my mind is my father’s use of the term—to denote an item that is lasting. He uses the term "quality" to express that the item represents a utilitarian function. He hates purchasing anything that is plastic, cheap, or disposable. He is a man of Dewalt drills, Carhartts, cast iron pans, and steel fence posts. This leads me to a tentative belief about Quality: it is utility-based. My dad sees the leather belt as quality for the same reason my mother sees a second-hand mixing bowl as quality—it fills the immediate utilitarian purpose. For him, the question is “does it last?” for her, it’s “how much does it cost?” 

 That Quality is utilitarian may seem a base notion, but take it further. Why is a film like Les Miserables deemed “quality” (winning three Oscars and three Golden Globes), compared to the oft-mocked “The Last Airbender?” (Sorry to any Airbender fans—you’re the minority.) I believe quality is based on meeting needs.  Les Miserables met present “movie needs” (to be poignant, pure, romantic, thrilling, etc.) lingering in our subconscious. “This is going to be good,” meaning, “I believe this will fill the emotional needs I have acquired on account of expectations (among other things) in regards to this film.”  Tracking?  Some needs are very utilitarian, in which case we lessen the need for aesthetic.  Like this paint-chipping seat-torn

Oh look, it has its own association. How quaint.

bike I own—it gets me to school; 

that’s what matters (to me.)  Other needs, like self-actualization (topping Maslow’s Hierarchy), require different forms of Quality to be met. Still tracking? Another example is water. What does “higher quality” water mean? Usually, it means more filtered, less chemicals, more pure. It is generally only applied to water used for human consumption, so in the situation “quality” denotes that the product better fulfills the human need of water, to nourish and replenish. 

Perhaps Quality benefits from being understood as the manifestation of met needs. A partial truth at its best, but it’s getting somewhere. And movement in these sorts of topics is good.