Quote:
Originally Posted by getbent
The concepts in Pirsig's book are summed up (by me) this way: A) in the physical world quality is always less than perfect and is because it actually exists it is flawed. B) In the theoretical imagined concept things and ideas can be perfect.
When we try to speak, sing, write, explain what we think is of perfect quality... we have made it physical and, thus, flawed.
So, the quality of anything or idea is dependent upon the characteristics that the evaluator assigns to what quality would be.
Objective in the mind
Subjective in the world.
check this out.... in school a lot of math teachers used to laugh about the english teachers as being light and fluffy and dreamy... and as students a lot of us bought it.... then one day the light came on for me....
A poem is usually about something.... a rose is a rose is a rose. Roses exist. They are varied but you can touch one, smell one, grow one, clip one....
Anybody ever seen a straight line? Nope. A cube? nope. how about a ray? nope. Remember guys who'd try to take protractors to measure the angles in the textbook and the teacher would laugh at them and tell them not to try to figure stuff out from the drawings because they weren't accurate?
Algebra? how do you touch X?
It is all relative as it relates to 'goods' that people buy. I work for a manufacturer and we strive mightily to achieve design objectives that are really important to us to make things that WE think are great. We also have to consider the potential customer even though we mostly believe that if we make what WE believe is high quality the consumers will value it and buy it.
Some producers just make what they think the consumer will want.
|
I would limit myself to discussing the idea of quality in the physical world. I'm quite interested in feelings of perceived quality as it relates to the material items in our lives.
It sounds like we're all allowed to decide for ourselves the level of quality of an item based upon how it meets our needs. If that's the case, then anything, regardless of price or construction, can be considered "Of high quality."
Wouldn't this lead to a constant change of an products quality?
Let's say that I'm young and don't make a lot of money. Can I consider the Toyota of higher quality than the Ferrari because it meets my needs in a way that the Ferrari can't? Years later I make a lot of money and I can buy and afford to maintain a Ferrari. Its aesthetic appeals to me and suits my new social class. Now the Ferrari is of higher quality than the Toyota.
I have some trouble with that. It would make quality completely dependent upon perception. It there no inherent quality difference between two items other than perception?