3 ms·

I’ve been drinking tonight, so I apologize if I fail, but I’m going to do my best. Is quality purely subjective? Everyone has their own version? No. There are

by thrav 7y ago

I’ve been drinking tonight, so I apologize if I fail, but I’m going to do my best. Is quality purely subjective? Everyone has their own version? No. There are levels of quality that we can all agree on, even if we don’t always understand why. Art. Writing. Photography. You know quality when you see it, but it defies a true definition. First instinct says it’s subjective, but universally pleasing forms and displays say otherwise. They suggest there is such a thing as objective beauty (quality). Faces that are perfectly symmetrical are objectively more appealing. They are quality. They invoke a feeling of being drawn in. Accepting. Gravity. Conversely, there are things that are objectively off-putting. Everyone hates them. They (almost) universally disgust us. Push us away. Anti-gravity. Plenty of people will argue I’m wrong and anything Landing in either category is still subjective. There are people who enjoy having human feces in their mouth. Seems like that might be right. Pirsig’s point is that the quality judgement, the thing that makes it possible for a thing to like or dislike (going all the way to electrons, neutrons, and protons “liking” and ”disliking” each other) another thing it’s engaged with is what makes it possible for the thing to begin to define subjects and objects, period. What differentiates a subject from an object, if not some deep notion of “I like this, give me more of this” and “this hurts me, get it away”. That’s what he calls quality, and what he posits is at the basis of all that matters. —-alright. I’ve had 3 Pliny’s tonight and I tried. If this is all nonsense, I’m eager to hear why so I can learn a thing or two and know more than I do now—-

sideshowb 7y ago
Firstly, well done because (if others accept your take) you've just explained the crux of ZAMM to me better than the book did. I never got that last line of yours from the book. Have another beer :) I still don't think it's right, though. Firstly we have a problem with defining subjective/objective. For example a decent hammer is a high quality tool for hammering in nails, but a low quality tool for screwing in screws. Does that make the quality of a hammer subjective (depending on the context in which it is used) or objective (independent of human perception provided we can accept an objective goal of joining two pieces of wood) or subjective again (because it takes a human to decide on that goal)? I find it near meaningless to begin this debate without agreeing on terms. Second, going all the way down to electrons, protons etc - this liking and disliking seems to be confusing different types of process altogether: computing/selecting from possible alternatives vs simple electromagnetism. That's not to deny that our brains might be powered by simple electromagnetism under the hood. But if you define "liking" for an electron as "moving towards a positive charge (momentum and other forces/quantum effects permitting)" and "disliking" as "moving towards a negative charge (similarly qualified)" then the electron will never experience the sensation of "dislike", while we as humans often do, so the parallel seems inappropriate. As to whether quality is objective/subjective what's wrong with the explanation that individual tastes vary but there is usually some correlation between them due to the evolutionary forces that shape both us and our memes? As to whether like/dislike defines subject/object what do you make of the person who dislikes their own body and would rather inhabit a different one? As to whether quality is essential for definition of subject/object: I'm not convinced it is at all. Sure "quality" might break a crude model of subjectivity/objectivity (which can then be refined as above) but just because something broke our model doesn't make that thing essential to defining the model. I can break some form of logic (propositional? first order? I forget) by asking you to evaluate the truth of "this statement is false" but that didn't mean we needed that statement to define the logic in the first place. And as to whether quality is undefinable: just because we repeatedly fail to define it doesn't mean it can't be. Not wanting to be argumentative btw. I'm genuinely interested to get to the bottom of this if you have further thoughts.
- thrav 7y ago
  No offense taken at all. You may not have gotten it, because it probably isn’t explained fully (or even realized fully by him) until his second book, which I like much more. Whereas ZMM is an inquiry into values, Lila is an inquiry into morals, and is where he lays out his metaphysics of quality. Plenty of people think it’s garbage, but I’ve yet to see someone take it apart, which is why I asked the original question of you. You used the phrase, evolutionary forces in your explanation. To him, that’s quality. The force that compelled the amoeba to move towards nutrients and away from danger is quality. In Lila, written for something like 15 years after ZMM was published, he posits that quality can be broken into 2 essential forms: Dynamic quality and static quality. They basically correlate to liberalism and conservatism. In his mind, both are essential for evolutionary progress and are the source of all that is. Dynamic quality is often random, unconventional, and disruptive. It’s some wild mutation that ends up being a positive, or some rogue actor who ends up birthing a movement for good. It is essential to progress beyond what is currently. Static quality is all that is good currently. It’s the breadth of learned knowledge. It’s the safety of what’s gotten us this far. Abandoning it entirely is a recipe for chaos and potentially great loss. In his estimation, the combination of these 2 forms of quality is what makes evolution work, and he believes humans are not the highest expression of evolution. He outlines levels of the world that are conquered in the name of progress and that each one supersedes the one before it. The first level is non-living matter. It’s just there, not doing much. The second is biological. It bends the non-living stuff to its will. The next level is social. It uses the living stuff for its benefit. The good of the whole outweighs the good of the individuals. People are to the society like food is to people. They power it, create it, become it, and it carries on after they’re gone. He uses the example of New York, consuming human productivity for its own benefit. Feasting on humans to grow bigger and stronger, and shitting them out the other side. The final level, as he sees it, is intellectual. Ideas supersede the societies. They bend them to their will. The idea that slaves should be free is strong enough to risk destruction of the society. His ethics is based on these levels. At the biological level, sex is always quality. At the societal level, the wrong sex can threaten the community / society and becomes more nuanced, only quality sometimes. Society > biology. At the intellectual level, slavery is bad, even though it results in strong communities and cities and has many benefits. My plane is taking off, so I finished that off poorly, but read Lila is that’s at all intriguing. It’s my favorite book.

by thrav 7y ago

sideshowb 7y ago

Firstly, well done because (if others accept your take) you've just explained the crux of ZAMM to me better than the book did. I never got that last line of yours from the book. Have another beer :) I still don't think it's right, though. Firstly we have a problem with defining subjective/objective. For example a decent hammer is a high quality tool for hammering in nails, but a low quality tool for screwing in screws. Does that make the quality of a hammer subjective (depending on the context in which it is used) or objective (independent of human perception provided we can accept an objective goal of joining two pieces of wood) or subjective again (because it takes a human to decide on that goal)? I find it near meaningless to begin this debate without agreeing on terms. Second, going all the way down to electrons, protons etc - this liking and disliking seems to be confusing different types of process altogether: computing/selecting from possible alternatives vs simple electromagnetism. That's not to deny that our brains might be powered by simple electromagnetism under the hood. But if you define "liking" for an electron as "moving towards a positive charge (momentum and other forces/quantum effects permitting)" and "disliking" as "moving towards a negative charge (similarly qualified)" then the electron will never experience the sensation of "dislike", while we as humans often do, so the parallel seems inappropriate. As to whether quality is objective/subjective what's wrong with the explanation that individual tastes vary but there is usually some correlation between them due to the evolutionary forces that shape both us and our memes? As to whether like/dislike defines subject/object what do you make of the person who dislikes their own body and would rather inhabit a different one? As to whether quality is essential for definition of subject/object: I'm not convinced it is at all. Sure "quality" might break a crude model of subjectivity/objectivity (which can then be refined as above) but just because something broke our model doesn't make that thing essential to defining the model. I can break some form of logic (propositional? first order? I forget) by asking you to evaluate the truth of "this statement is false" but that didn't mean we needed that statement to define the logic in the first place. And as to whether quality is undefinable: just because we repeatedly fail to define it doesn't mean it can't be. Not wanting to be argumentative btw. I'm genuinely interested to get to the bottom of this if you have further thoughts.

thrav 7y ago
No offense taken at all. You may not have gotten it, because it probably isn’t explained fully (or even realized fully by him) until his second book, which I like much more. Whereas ZMM is an inquiry into values, Lila is an inquiry into morals, and is where he lays out his metaphysics of quality. Plenty of people think it’s garbage, but I’ve yet to see someone take it apart, which is why I asked the original question of you. You used the phrase, evolutionary forces in your explanation. To him, that’s quality. The force that compelled the amoeba to move towards nutrients and away from danger is quality. In Lila, written for something like 15 years after ZMM was published, he posits that quality can be broken into 2 essential forms: Dynamic quality and static quality. They basically correlate to liberalism and conservatism. In his mind, both are essential for evolutionary progress and are the source of all that is. Dynamic quality is often random, unconventional, and disruptive. It’s some wild mutation that ends up being a positive, or some rogue actor who ends up birthing a movement for good. It is essential to progress beyond what is currently. Static quality is all that is good currently. It’s the breadth of learned knowledge. It’s the safety of what’s gotten us this far. Abandoning it entirely is a recipe for chaos and potentially great loss. In his estimation, the combination of these 2 forms of quality is what makes evolution work, and he believes humans are not the highest expression of evolution. He outlines levels of the world that are conquered in the name of progress and that each one supersedes the one before it. The first level is non-living matter. It’s just there, not doing much. The second is biological. It bends the non-living stuff to its will. The next level is social. It uses the living stuff for its benefit. The good of the whole outweighs the good of the individuals. People are to the society like food is to people. They power it, create it, become it, and it carries on after they’re gone. He uses the example of New York, consuming human productivity for its own benefit. Feasting on humans to grow bigger and stronger, and shitting them out the other side. The final level, as he sees it, is intellectual. Ideas supersede the societies. They bend them to their will. The idea that slaves should be free is strong enough to risk destruction of the society. His ethics is based on these levels. At the biological level, sex is always quality. At the societal level, the wrong sex can threaten the community / society and becomes more nuanced, only quality sometimes. Society > biology. At the intellectual level, slavery is bad, even though it results in strong communities and cities and has many benefits. My plane is taking off, so I finished that off poorly, but read Lila is that’s at all intriguing. It’s my favorite book.