RICK:
I think I found a way to express what I wanted about "Good is a noun."
I had a writing teacher who warned us not to confuse the author's belief with
a particular character. Pirsig put a twist on this by making himself a
character.
I understand and appreciate your desire to do a hatchet job because you don't
want people to think of Pirsig's work as "bibles" or fanclub pamphlets.
BUT when you call the John Woodenleg story "stupid" or that Pirsig didn't
know what John was thinking when he said something I think that you are
reading Pirsig's work as a philosophical article and disappointed at omitted
information. He wrote a story and I believe his story. Just like I would
believe a coming age story a 70 year-old experienced and wrote about.
I believe that Phaedrus experienced hitting a homer but also think that a
hidden variable threw the ball right back at the author (perhaps with the
words " good is already a noun" written on it.)
I guess it is debatable whether Pirsig (author) had this experience (if i had
to bet I would probably bet yes).
In other words my opinion is that Pirsig (author) wrote about the "good is a
noun" experience that Phaedrus (character) had leaving out "good is already a
noun" experience Pirsig (author) had because ambiguous works of art are the
best aren't they? That is I think he wanted us to realize "good is already a
noun" on our own, because spelling things out is not the style of a fictional
author.
Good is noun. Good is already a noun. Good will be a noun. Good seems to be a
noun. etc. etc. etc.
I just want to stress that Pirsig chose fiction to write MOQ and should be
read as such.
ERIN
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 - 16:01:45 BST