From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Nov 03 2002 - 00:04:54 GMT
Hey gang:
Erin said:
As a good author I believe Pirsig would have to be able to identify
themselves
with all the levels.
He says he shares alot of static values with Phaedrus but
he unlike you two seem to realize that he exists on several
levels.
DMB says:
Right. The levels themselves are discreet and do not overlap, but as living
beings we are composed of patterns from all these levels. At least,
hopefully. As the author puts it, we're a "forest" of static patterns. The
intellectual doesn't replace everything with 4th level values, she only adds
them to the landscape. They're integrated into the forest.
As Pirsig said:
One interviewer asked me, "Are you really Phaedrus?" The answer was,
"Yes I really am Phaedrus. I also really am Richard Rigel. I also really
am Lila. I also really am the boat."
DMB says:
Remember when he thought the boat's intake valve was clogged, but turned out
not to be? Just wondering. Anyway, this not only shows that Pirsig
identifies with his characters, and that he recognizes all four levels
within himself, but also explicitly reveals the basic structure of the
story. He demonstrates what people are like at levels 2, 3 and 4. Its one of
those MOQ basics. Its one of those foundation blocks.
Pirsig said:
"Yes, Phædrus is overwhelmingly intellectual. ...
My editor wanted me to make him a warmer person in
order to increase reader appeal. But making him warmer would have made him
more social and weakened the contrasts between himself and Rigel and Lila
that were intended to give strength to the story."
DMB says:
Hmmm. I wonder if his editor wanted him to insert some bar fights and sex
scenes?
"Make a little love. Get down tonight! Get down tonight!" Just kidding.
Pirsig says:
"The word "I" like the word "self" is one of the trickiest words in any
metaphysics. Sometimes it is an object, a human body; sometimes it is a
subject, a human mind. I believe there are number of philosophic systems,
notably Ayn Rand's "Objectivism," that call the "I" or "individual" the
central reality. Buddhists say it is an illusion. So do scientists. The MOQ
says it is a collection of static patterns capable of apprehending Dynamic
Quality. I think that if you identify the "I" with the intellect and nothing
else you are taking an unusual position that may need some defending."
DMB says:
This quote re-states the point Erin and I are trying to make, but it also
addresses some of Sam's objections to the intellectual level. Pirsig too,
dislikes the idea of a "disembodied intellect". He addresses the issue of
what it is that is capable of quality apprehension; namely the whole
collection of patterns that constitute the self. This includes the emotional
self. In fact, it preceeds the intellect and the intellect couldn't exist
without, as understood by mainstream psychology and the MOQ. As far as I can
tell, most of your objections would disappear with a closer look at the MOQ.
I mean, it seems Pirsig complains about many of the same things you've been
pondering.
Thanks,
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 : Sun Nov 03 2002 - 00:04:34 GMT