Angus and Oisin and All
Angus said:
>I think this is a fatal flaw, because
> to me it reeks of "gurudom". I, Pirsig, have made the
> final Hegelian system. Pirsig is kind in making
> attributions to James and other philosophers. But I
> sense a haughtiness in him and his writing even. His
> writing is very prideful, as if he is giving dictums
> (I read with relish his mistake about the Eskimo words
What exactly is the mistake? The number? If it pleases you I can
reveal that "Phaedrus" as Greek for "wolf" (ZAMM 381) is a
mistake too, but to find relish in such and deem "LILA less
successful.." because of it is beyond me. Pirsig is human and may
make mistakes, but this can't make the faintest difference as to
the validity of his ideas.
All in all I find your approach to the MoQ so off every point that it's
no use trying to counter it. Of course it wouldn't be much of a
discussion if everyone praised Pirsig, but your criticism must be
based on a minimum of understanding of (the foundation) of his
philosophy. I haven't got the faintest idea what Derrida talks about,
but wouldn't dream of entering a Derrida discussion either.
Oisin replied:
> I think there's a lot of new ideas hitting us at once in Lila. Maybe
> Pirsig tries to fast-foward to the conclusions to fit his ideas into
> his publisher's recommended book-length. Maybe haughtiness is
> sometimes just a preemptive strike against rejection. And sure, maybe
> a man's entitled to a bit of pride in his life's labour of love...?
Agree. Pirsig obviously pressed a lot of ideas into the book that to
him at the moment looked promising. For instance - to me - the
Dawkins "meme" idea, and that genes makes the human body for
its own purpose isn't very important or instrumental for
understanding the MoQ. Also, the "Giant" observation that P.
makes on his way to the boat in NYC may be impressive, but not
useful if it is the Social Level he describes.
The "haughtiness" that Angus find with Pirsig I don't see, but your
words about it are good. I may even agree with the below.
> In terms of literary quality, Lila did seem to be more laboured and
> stilted than ZAMM, perhaps because the subject matter was inherently
> less Dynamic in an absolute sense.
....and with the rest of what you wrote ...naturally :-)
Over to your objections regarding the static level system - you said:
> I don't fully accept the levels either, but because of what I perceive
> to be an oversimplification of its hierarchy. For example, religion
> seems to get shoved into the 'Social' level. But many a sincere
> faith-practioner will tell you that religion is something that is
> invested as much in one's intellect as one's Social interactions - and
> without detracting from one's ability to pursue 'pure' Intellectual
> matters.
Problems occur when starting to sort things and phenomena that
way, as if there are four containers - and then asking what goes
where. For example back in the opening phase of this discussion
there was a mile-long thread about where a "throne" belongs; as a
material artifact or a social symbol? This exercise is useless and
and irrelevant to the static value part of the MoQ. Religion? The
Catholic Church with laboriously worked out comments to dogma
and a Vatican Library with miles of books may sound as
"intellectual" as a University, but see it as a refinement of cave
man's "explanation" of origin and destination. It was clearly
important for the tribe's cohesion. No community can exist without
a common myth ...and that is the way we must regard religion.
But ....when some Greek thinkers started to doubt the truth
(objectivity) of the myths the Q-Intellect was born. THAT is the
Intellectual level, not the ability to think or literacy or intelligence.
> (I notice too sometimes, that some people who claim to be
> above and beyond religion/social patterns have a blind spot, and
> harbour values and judgements which cannot be derived from Intellect
> alone, yet they use Intellect to rationalise their values as if they
> were.)
Exactly, it's an important tenet of the MoQ that all levels are born
of the parent level. Q-intellect isn't a free-floating entity, but out of
the social level. Hope I understand you correctly?
Bo
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 - 16:01:33 BST