Hey Erin,
> ERIN: Okay. What I think is this idea of writing top down vs bottom up.
Please
> understand I am not saying one approach is better than another. I have
heard
> how some writers start with a clear outline skeleton of a story and fill
in
> details (top down) and the approach described here is more "associative"
and
> the outline emerges.
RICK
I've heard that Tom Robbins starts with no plan, but writes his books
forward only, one sentence at a time, never adding a period until he's done
with the sentence, and never going back once the period's been added. I
don't know if that's true, but if it isn't... it should be.
ERIN
> What if ZAMM was written in a top-down way?
> What if LILA was written in a bottom-up way?
> (Both of them are pointing to MOQ but in a different way-)
RICK
ZMM was (according to RMP) written mainly from 3 different pieces... (1)
An essay by Pirsig called 'Quality in freshman composition' which he
delivered to an association of English professors, (2) A story he wrote
about his trip with Chris, and (3) A treatise on his metaphysical thoughts
about Quality. The three were written independently and later he 'spliced'
them together and 'smoothed' it out (with alot of help from his editors I'm
sure). Thus, I'm not sure it would be correct as saying it was written
'linearly' or 'from the top down'.
Personally, I think much of the different spirit of LILA is a reaction
to Pirsig's critics (embodied in Rigel) who spent decades accusing him of
being an ethical relativist and a soft-philosopher... as a result, he
heavily dogmatized his theory and style.
I'm not sure if this fits with your theory at all, but I can
definitely see ZMM's view of morality as being more 'inductive', while LILA
lays down more rigid 'deductive' principles.
> ERIN: No, what I am saying is that there are different methods for the
same
> moral problem. Both methods are pointing the same way but are "getting
there"
> differently.
RICK
Maybe... but I don't think the MOQ is quite so single-minded. While (i have
no doubt) the MOQ allows for the same solution to a given conflict to be
reached by several different paths, I think it's so undefined in some senses
that it allows for drastically different interpretations and solutions to
the same conflicts. Which is bad news for Pirsig's hopes of having greater
precision in the analysis of moral problems.
and...
I've never been thrilled by the RMP quote about left-handedness you
included..... Lefties are more creative and righties more rational? I don't
know... Pirsig sometimes quickly latches on to 'hard science' that seems to
back his views (Diana used to like to point out how Pirsig was suckered by
Sapir-Whorf's 'Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax')... I'm going to need more evidence
than this before I sign on to this one.
it's all good,
rick
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 - 16:01:48 BST