Donny-
The story of your intro ZMM and the Power of myth is striking to me as mine
is almost identical. I was 18 year old college drop out, playing in jazz
band and using more drugs and alcohol than I care to discuss when I
accidently stumbled on to ZMM and the Power of Myth simultaneously.
Reading them had the same "igniting" effect on me it did on you. From
there I started reading Campbell's other stuff, various works of philosphy
and psychology and older "philosophical" fictions, like Goethe. Before I
found these books education was of very low value for me (something I
suspect that was caused by the same low quality conditions Pirsig speaks of
in ZMM, ie- imitating the teacher, etc.). My new found love of knowledge
set me straight in life and now I'm pursuing a degree in Rhetoric and
Philosophy at Cornell University. When I first found LILA I had to read it
twice to get a handle on all the implications. I have to say that I was
slightly disappointed at the Quality of the writing, but I was willing to
overlook that if the philosophy was good (sacrifice the romantic if the
classic funtions well). I had spent a great deal of time testing the
philosophy on my own before I found this Squad. Most of the members seem
to be far more scurtinizing than myself and watching the proceedings have
been fascinating. I'm still not sure how much of it holds up. There are
huge problems with the relativity involved in the system itself (same level
conflicts) and with relativity in it's application. It seems to me that
you could make many situations come out to be moral or immoral depending on
how you break it down (how you want them to come out). I'm very interested
in the topic of the month because I want to see how this all resolves
itself (or if it does). ZMM is a masterpiece and LILA seems like footnotes
to it. Whether those footnotes were worth it seems to be left to this
group to decide. I watch and wait. Thanks for sharing Donny.
Rick
At 12:08 PM 11/4/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Bodvar Skutvik wrote:
>
>>For Lithien: You once asked me if one has to turn mad to understand
>>the MOQ. No, no longer, once the new platform outside of SOM was
>>established it's nothing more than a little unsteady feeling shifting
>>standpoint, but for poor Phaedrus of ZMM it was more risky and I often
>>wonder what made him step out into the no-man's land? Will we ever
>>know? Does he know himself?
>
> Bodvar, you make a very big deal about the labeling of 'SOM' (I
>remember you once said that that was the real importance to the MoQ and
>not Quality -- "He could have used any term [insted of Q]," were, I
>believe, your words!). But identifying 'SOM' wasn't at all Pirsig's
>original doing. 'Anti-SOM ' philosophy has been around for a very long
>time -- It's perhaps the oldest human philosophy and the foundation of
>magic and religion going back to Lascaux. I've argued this point here
>before and recieved no real responce, much less a refutation. If you
>define SOM as "The position that the knowing subject and the known object
>are ontologically seperate and irreducable -- not able to be derived from
>one-another or from any other entity" as we agreed to at the end of our
>1st PROGRAM, then I can hand you bags full of non- or anti-SOMs. I can
>give you bits of Kant, Hegel, and Hippolet where they deny the above
>position -- Hegel even acuuses Kant of trying to esscape the S-O duality
>but never truly suceeding. They were against that above stated position;
>the Vadanta of Hinduism is; the Taoists; the Buddhists; The Gnostics...
> Many, many people identifyed and denied that position before RMP
>did. It's a major theam in philospophy, religion, mythology and art. This
>framework ('SOM' vs. non-SOM) was -well- established by the time the
>events of ZMM took place and that can be philosoplogically proven.
>
>>
>>There's discussion what is best: ZMM or LILA? IMHO Pirsig could
>>have gotten away with the first as a masterpiece and a status
>>much like JD Salinger, embraced by all as a great work of art,
>>he had not committed himself with clear-cut assertions as he did in
>>LILA.
>
> Very few masterpieces ever make clear-cut assertions. That's part
>of what makes something Art! James Joyce, Goethe, Peter Hoeg, Thomas
>Mann... these are all great authers, and none of them spell everything out
>for you. They open doors, they contain possabilities... they imply. Thus
>they also inspire analysis, debate, interpritation... the reader is not a
>passive entity, but a participant in the art.
>
>"Education is not filling a pail. It's egnigting a fire!" (Ben Franklen)
>
>This is also part of what, in the visual arts, sepperates Fine Art from
>graphic design/illustration. An illustration or a poster (generally) has
>to be immedeatly readable. I think it was Paul Klee (one of my favorite
>artists) who said, "What is required to understand art is a chair." You
>have to work w/ it, sit w/ it, live w/ it. And everyone who does that will
>be taken in a slightly different direction -- and that's GREAT! No two
>people will ever interpret a great work of art in -exactly- the same way.
>
> ZMM *is* a masterpiece. It's a great work of
>philosophy/intellectual education. (I can't eveluate how much discovering
>that book and Joe Campbell's *Power of Myth*, at a relativly early age
>changed my life -- started me into philosophy, mythology, graeat works of
>literature... I hated reading, and read nothing but the minimum school
>requirments until I was 17. I had so-so grades at the end of High school,
>but after my first year of college I was on full achademic scholership.
>ZMM heleped to ignite in me a "fire in the mind" as we say -- a passion
>for learning.) It's a great novel. It's a genious approch to
>autobiography. It's a re-telling of a classic mythic motief playing on
>Goethe's Erl-King, Hamlet, and the story of Christ.
> LILA, by comparison, is pretty good as far as philosophy books go
>(It has it's ups and downs). As a novel it's out-right struggleing, and I
>don't think it quite reaches the level of mythology... Maybe it does, but
>not very high quality mythology. ZMM really made me -CARE- about the
>characters in the book. I literally cryed the 1st time I read of Chris'
>murder in the afterwards, I was so deeply connected -- put at-one w/. But
>in LILA... Personaly, I found Lila only slightly more annoying than
>Pheadrus and Reigal. I didn't care much about the characters. Mostly they
>just got on my nerves.
> But look, I don't want to sound like I dislike the book or
>anything. I thought it was quite good. It just doesn't make it on the same
>shelf as Thomas Mann's *Dortor Faustus* or Peter Hoeg's *History of
>Dannish Dreams*... much less RMP's ZMM! It dosn't quite achieve
>'Masterpiece.'
>
>>Just consider: For seventeen years he plugged away at
>>explaining a system that he did not have an inkling if anyone would
>>understand at all, throwing to the wolves all ambiguity of the ZMM
>>that could be interpreted to fit everyone's favourite taste. Well,
>>now there is an Internet discussion going like wildfire while the
>>those who praised the ZMM are silent.
>
> Silent! Hardly! I find ZMM a -lot- more pervasive out there than
>LILA. Many bookstores don't even carry LILA, but they do carry ZMM, so I
>assume that ZMM is continuing to out-sell it's sibling.
> There's a painting instructer here at UT -- a wonderfull, wise old
>lady -- who has all her Grad's read ZMM. It is known simply as "The Book."
>She calls it "the foundation for everything!" "Quality" is the most
>important word in her class. One night we spent 1/2 an hour debating how I
>should finnish a piece. Finally she said (quating ZMM) "I don't care how
>you do it; just do it well." And as important as ZMM is to this whole
>creative atmoshere (she's read 'The Book' through again and again)... I'm
>not really sure if she even knows LILA exists.
>
>>
>>I better get down from my soap box now. :-)
>
> You should know that if you climb-up there and talk about
>something merely "getting away w/" being a materpiece you're not going to
>be let off w/o having to dodge a few vegitables. ;-)
> Pirsig said the highest moral level as the 'code of Art,' and even
>if it's true that LILA is "the smart one" as he (RMP) says, it's still not
>the higher quality one. The reason behind that 'code of Art' line is
>because -- as I said above -- art can take us to a higher place because of
>(not inspite of) it's ability to imply what can't be said. Like that
>Hienrich Zimmer quote:
>
>"The best things can not be said, because they're beyond words. The 2nd
>best are always misunderstood, because they are alligorical but are taken
>literaly."
>
>Art (and mythology) is that 2nd best realm.
>
> "Getting away w/"... Cripes, Bo. :-7
>>
>>Bodvar
>>
> Donny
>
>
>
>homepage - http://www.moq.org
>queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
>unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
>body of email
>
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 - 16:02:38 BST