All,
>DAN:
>Robert Pirsig is an author and Phaedrus is a fictional character in his
>books. They are not the same.
I agree with Dan that the major players (the 'narrator', Phaedrus, Lila)
are all fictional characters developed by the author to entertain,
inform, and illustrate, both in form and content, the insights gained
from the author's experiences. So in this sense all the characters and
none of the characters are Pirsig.
In discussion with Bo (I think?) quite a while back when I was trying to
reconstruct a timeline of Pirsig's life based on the clues in the books
and from other sources he made the comment that he felt that the events
portayed in "Lila" particularly the Lila sequence from 'picking up
barladies" to her exit with Riegel was primarily fiction. His reasoning
was that during the "real Pirsig's" timeline his 'boating period" was
during a time that he was, by all appearances, happily married. Now this
does not mean that Pirsig did not have " picking up barladies"
experiences and "Lila" experiences just probably not during that period
of time. Maybe he should have modified the ZaMM forward for Lila to:
"What follows is based on actual occurrences. Although much has been
changed for rhetorical purposes, it must be regarded in its essence as
fact. However, it should in no way be associated with that great body of
factual information relating to REAL WORLD EVENTS. It’s not factual on
MY LIFE, either."
> Platt
> I think Pirsig's hypocrisy does indeed damage the veracity of his
> metaphysics. He cannot berate Rigel on one hand and escape
> criticism of himself on the other. He cannot set up a moral code and
> then violate it without raising doubts about his sincerity. Once that
> doubt is raised, he begins to lose authenticity.
>
> Since the MOQ can be interpreted in ways to justify our moral
> preconceptions (meaning it can be all things to all people and thus
> meaningless), and since Pirsig himself violates his own canons,
> should we take the rest his metaphysics seriously?
>
> Your answer, Horse, is that the actions of the author make no
> difference. I would dearly like to agree, but I can't. Actions speak louder
> than words in my book, especially when it comes to matters moral.
> Also, that there seems to be as many interpretations of the MOQ as
> there are contributors to this site raises the suspicion that there's
> reallly less of a fundamental nature here than meets the eye.
But in my opinion the issue of Phaedrus's (not Pirsig's) hypocrisy is
not entirely moot. It serves to distinguish between metaphysics, "the
first principles" that "seeks to explain the nature of being or
reality", and the other philosophic tools such as ethics or aesthetics
which are usually rooted in some metaphysical foundation, either
explicitly or tacitly.
The trap that Phaedrus, and many of us, falls into is trying to
immediately apply metaphysical insights to solve to all philosophical
problems without development of the other philosophical systems. That
murder, death penalites, rape and pillage, and meat eating meat are "the
nature of being or reality" the current metaphysical facts of our
experience, is undeniable.
The hope that the MoQ offers is that these patterns of value are not
absolutes, are not rigid fixed, or preordained. That they are changable,
can and do change over time, and in general change for the GOOD.
3WD
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:24 BST