For Lithien-
Once again I appreciate you taking the time to explain some points to me I
may or may not be fuzzy on. I've read ZAMM over ten times and LILA about
six and so far I still regard ZAMM as the far more impressive and important
work (despite what RMP himself thinks). Maybe because ZAMM simply points
you in a direction that LILA tries to drag you in. I really loved ZAMM for
not trying to "say" it, if you know what I mean. I sort of resented LILA
for its turn around of attitude. Not that there isn't a wealth of great
ideas in LILA, I just don't think they're quite as well thought out or well
developed (I know this attitude isn't going to win me any friends here, but
hey, popularity isn't necessarily Quality, right?). Anyway...
Perhaps I miss phrased what I was asking before. Let's try it this way...
Individuals, not societies, are the source of ideas. Societies may
eventually grow to embody and value those ideas, but they start with a
person, be it Buddha or Jesus or Bodhi Dharma or Plato or Robert M. Pirsig.
In fact you could use Pirsig's description of the formation of common
sense from ZAMM to explain how these values are formed: "We see what we see
because these ghosts show it to us, ghosts of Moses and Christ and the
Buddha, and Plato, and Descartes and Rousseau and Jefferson and Lincoln, on
and on and on..." Societies may seize on these ideas and combine them, but
they originate from individuals. So why doesn't "intellectual" come from
"biological"? I would very much like to be corrected on this point. I
hate thinking that Pirsig may have something wrong. His ideas have changed
the way I see everything and I want nothing more than to understand them as
completely as possible.
Rick
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:36 BST