From: Erin Noonan (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Sat Oct 05 2002 - 21:25:24 BST
>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
>Hi Erin,
>
>I agree that in the specific instance that Pirsig describes, his reaction
>was quality-directed, in other words that if he had allowed Redford to have
>his wicked way, that would have been a degenerate activity - for the reasons
>you describe in this and other posts. However, Pirsig doesn't tie his
>reaction down to specifics, indeed he uses very sweeping terminology - and
>he doesn't have to. He could have been more discriminating, but he wasn't.
>Perhaps this is a narrative device (part of his anti-Phaedrus rhetoric);
>even so, I think the point is worth making.
>
>Sam
>www.elizaphanian.v-2-1.net/home.html
>
Hello Sam,
Well I think this disagreement has its roots in the value of approaching the
discussion for a 'true Pirsig'.
I am interested in getting close to the intended author's meaning as possible.
I think that to do this you have to take that comment in the context it was
given which I already talked about (general observation of what was typical in
the film industry). But I do think it is a fair argument to stick to exactly
what he says in that quote (sweeping generalization).
For some reason this type of reading reminds me of a lawyer looking for a
loophole then reading a work of literature.
I think both arguments are valid but here it is where I don't see how you can
get a 'true Pirsig' approach without calling him and asking him what he meant
by that quote.
It may be too early but if nobody wants to argue what you think is the
intended meaning of that quote wouldn't that possibly be a clue that wasn't
the intended meaning?
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 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:53 GMT