In chapter 17 of Lila, Pirsig writes,
'When societies and cultures are seen not as inventions of man but as
higher organisms than bilogical man, the phenomena of war and genocide and
all the other forms of human exploitation become more intelligible. Mankind
has never been interested in getting itself killed. But the superorganism,
the giant, who is a pattern of values superimposed on top of bilogical human
bodies, doesn't mind losing a few bodies to protect his greater interests.'
Then in chapter 24 he writes,
'What the metaphysics of quality indicates is that the twentieth century
intellectual faith in mans basic goodness as spontaneous and natural is
disastrously naive. The ideal of harmonious society in which everyone
without coercian co-operates appily with everyone else for the mutual good
of all is devestating fiction.
It isn't consistent with scientific fact. Studies of bones left by the
cavemen indicate that cannibalism, not co-operation was a pre-society norm.
Primitive tribes such as the American indians have no record of sweetness
and co-operation with other tribes. They ambushed them, tortured them,
dashed their childrens brains out on the rocks. If man is basically good,
then maybe it is man's basic goodness which invented social institutions to
repress this kind of bilogical savagery in the first place.'
I reakon that these quotes contradict one another. The first to says to me
that mankind has been corrupted by society whilst the second says that
society has saved mankind from itself. Or in other words, man is basically
good contrasted to man is bad. (O.K, so maybe my interpretation is a bit
indulgent.)
Now does anyone agree with me?
The issue of original human nature ( read human biology minus social and
intellectual patterns ) is touched upon again when Pirsig talks about the
indians and their 'idea' of human equality. That equality is the product of
an idea suggests that, without it, humans are born divided against one
another. I have a hunch that human equality is not something that needs to
be learnt. Furthermore, if my interpretaiton of what Pirsig writes is
correct, then it does sound quite contradictory coming from someone who is
partial to Zen what with its high regard for original nature and compassion
to all life.
Original human nature is a controversial subject. Pirsig's hints at his
opinion of it have left me confused!
Thanks
Ian
(By the way Horse, I don't know John!)
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:04 BST