What Gives Quality?

Kelly,
I like your claim that the definition of quality isn't black and white because it is a term that is subjective and contextual: based on one's values, mindsets, environment etc. I agree with this because I think that a large part of quality (definitely not all of it) is the effect that an object has on a subject. The same object will have different effects on different people because this effect is received by the subject according to who he/she is. I think this applies with Jared's truffle example: even though he doesn't really like truffles, he still sees them as having quality. Truffles do not have a positive effect on Jared, but he sees them as having quality because he likes the positive effects that truffles have on other subjects. I think my definition of quality is too simple to cover all that quality is but it also doesn't limit what quality can be. I think that quality is the interaction between an object and subject that is beautiful.....but then what is beauty?
Pirsig describes objects with quality as having some self identifying factor that the creator has with his creation and that the audience has with the creation as well. I think that beauty has some self identification in a part of what it is, but I definitely don't think that self identification covers all that it is....kind of like quality. However, I do see Pirsig's definition to be true in a lot of contexts in my life. I see an object as having more quality if it moves me. This movement can be emotionally, intellectually, spiritually, etc. I think that self identification isn't the only aspect of quality because I don't identify with almost anything purely scientific (It's just not my thing) but I still see certain research in that field as having quality. I think that maybe I more identify with the passion that certain scientists have for their research and the amount of effort, thought, and time that they invest into it. I also have friends going for science-y majors and I love when they get excited about something that provides them with passion...in this example, it would be some scientific discovery or research. Soooo....maybe when a subject doesn't identify with a certain object, they still see that object as quality because they either identify with the creation of the object or they identify with the self-identification process that it has on other audiences? I haven't fully thought that out...obviously.
 I do think it's worth considering "what gives an object an essence of quality?" because as writers, we are creators. If writing rhetorically, we create opportunities for our readers to create thoughts, opinions, emotion, for themselves. I think rhetoric answers the why and how questions of that creation process. How will I give my writing  more ethos to my reader and why do I want my reader to know my credibility? I think why Pirsig (even though he does go too deep into the topic) is so invested into finding a definition of quality is because as any artist, the end goal is quality. I think that quality is a large part of what rhetoric is. As a writer, I approach my writing in a way that I want it to create a quality experience for my reader. I think the reason why quality drives Pirsig nuts, besides the fact that he overthinks everything, is because as rhetoricians we are striving for something that we cannot even define.
I agree with Jared that Pirsig does over think this concept but I do think that it is one that any artist should not overlook. However, I think that if we overthink the definition of quality, like Pirsig, then we miss out on making quality moments in our lives. Pirsig is so deep into thinking of rhetorical binaries, quality, etc. that he is missing the opportunity to create a quality experience with Chris. So I believe that their is a balance of how much thought we should invest into quality. We should understand its importance, what it means to us personally and what we are creating, but I do think that if it is analyzed too much, it defeats its purpose.