Posters and silent observers:
I wish there were time to address all the issues raised in the latest
flurry of posts. I think there has been some meaty posts lately and am
grateful for them. Walter's answer to Clark was top drawer stuff. It was
precisely what the "hierarcy of ideologies" post was all about.
But there are two issues that interest me most: "celebrities" and the
"Truth vs Quality" debate.
THE UNVARNISHED TRUTH
Glove and jc, among others, have been discussing this topic. I think its
safe to say that Pirsig's "many truths provisionality" is at the heart
of the debate. I think there is a murky and incorrect interpretation of
Pirsig's idea and it has turned the notion into a paralyzing nihilism
where everything is everything and nothing matters. Here's what I
mean...
Pirsig's "many truths" idea is a remedy to SOM's "Truth" with a capital
"T". SOM's Truth is exclusive, its part of that amoral objectivity
problem. Instead, Pirsig's "many truths" offers a different view, where
truth is spelled with a small "t", so to speak. It is consistent with
the idea that every part of reality is made of value, but that it exists
as different levels of value. Its "true" that sex is good. Its "true"
that fidelity is good. Its true that freedom is good. There are many
truths and sometimes they conflict, but that doesn't make them less
true, just true on different levels. So the question is NOT "Is it
true?". The question ought to be "How is it true?"
Pirsig's "many truths" idea shouldn't be interpreted to mean that every
idea is equally valid. If Pirsig thought that was true he wouldn't have
spent so many years trying to come up with a better explanation of
things. It ought not be construed to mean that every opinion is correct.
The provisonality of the MOQ ought not be constured that way either.
This notion is not all that fancy. Its Pirsig's respect for the ongoing
evolutionary process, for the creative force behind it all. Its a bow to
DQ and the mystic. But its also as conventional and rational as the
scientific method. Good scientists know that new data can change
everything and new data is excactly what excites them most. Science is
open ended. E=MC2 is true, but its not thee "Truth".
I think its ok if we think of the MOQ as truth with a small "t". Or we
could say that its the "highest quality intellectual explanation of
things", but its such a mouthful and really means the same thing.
The whole POINT is simply that we can't let Pirsig's "many truths
provisionality" become an excuse for sloppy thinking. We can't let it
lead us into another moral vacuum. Everything matters.
Einstein was a CELEBRITY. Still is.
I really hate Tom Cruise. He stole my woman. Plus he's extremely
mediocre.
But seriously, this "celebrity" thing is much, much deeper than one
might imagine. The gods are the original and the ultimate celebrities.
And it does function on a social level. But it's also deeply
psychological. I don't know if a full explanation can be achieved in a
single post, but I'll sketch a few lines and just hope you recall the
details...
Pirsig's meeting with Redford. The MOQ is intellectual, but movies are
only social. No deal.
Butch and Sundance as the embodiment of Plains Indian values, in sepia
tone.
Campell's "THE MASKS OF GOD" will tell you what social values are all
about.
The take-over by the intellectual level occurs after the "death of God".
All we ever get are mirrors. Celebrities are collective mirrors. These
"Heros" are our models. They embody ancient patterns of value. They
demonstate it. Act it out. They live out our dreams as they live out
their own. That's why the Zuni shaman became Governor.
Celebrity status is nearly everything in high school. Its a lesser thing
in college, as it should be.
Fame and fortune, status and authority are rewards for those who serve
the "Giant".
There are very probably a few other scenes and ideas concerning
celebrity in Lila. Its not really one of the MAIN themes, one has to
string some things together and it doesn't hurt to bring in some
additional materials, like the works of Cambell as mentioned at the end
of the book, but Pirsig does paint a picture of celebrity as a powerful
and ancient force.
Movie stars are interesting because they function as celebrities in
several ways at once. Charleton Heston is rich and famous in his own
right, but he also portrays and wears the face of guys like Moses. He
can be admired as a comtemorary success and for the fine characters he
plays in the movies. And it doesn't have to be a bible movie. ET is a
Christ figure. Rambo is a kind of mythic warrior. Luke Skywalker is the
classic hero. Indiana Jones and John Wayne. Movies are almost inherently
mythic, as is any good story. Gods, monsters, heros and movie stars.
What's the difference? Not much.
There are much better heros than my examples might indicate. But it
doesn't need to be sophisticated or intellectual. Movie, for the most
part, operate on the social level. They're about action more than ideas.
The best stories have ideas in them, but its between the lines, so to
speak. Sometimes a movie is truely inspired and can rightly be called
art, don't you think?
David B.
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 - 16:03:14 BST