From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon Dec 02 2002 - 00:02:22 GMT
Wim and all Lila lovers:
Wim quotes the author:
Pirsig answers the question 'Does Lila have Quality?' in several seemingly
contradictory ways.
In chapter 11 of 'Lila' he wrote:
'It isn't Lila that has quality; it's Quality that has Lila. Nothing can
have Quality. To have something is to possess it, and to possess something
is to dominate it. Nothing dominates Quality. If there's domination and
possession involved, it's Quality that dominates and possesses Lila. She's
created by it. She's a cohesion of changing static patterns of this Quality.
There isn't any more to her than that. The words Lila uses, the thoughts she
thinks, the values she holds, are the end product of three and a half
billion years of the history of the entire world. She's a kind of jungle of
evolutionary patterns of value. She doesn't know how they all got there any
more than any jungle knows how it came to be. 'And yet there in the middle
of this "Lila Jungle" are ancient prehistoric ruins of past civilizations.
You could dig into those ruins like an archaeologist layer by layer, through
regressive centuries of civilization, measuring by the distance down in the
soil, the distance back in time. ... Lila is composed of static patterns of
value and these patterns are evolving toward a Dynamic Quality. That's the
theory, anyway. She's on her way somewhere, just like everybody else. And
you can't say where that somewhere is.'
Wim wants to square it with this quote:
In spite of 'Nothing can have Quality' Pirsig answers the same question
'Does Lila have Quality?' in chapter 13 with:
'Biologically she does, socially she doesn't. Obviously! Evolutionary
morality just splits that whole question open like a watermelon. Since
biological and social patterns have almost nothing to do with each other,
Lila does and Lila does not have quality at the same time. That's exactly
the feeling she gave too-a sort of mixed feeling of quality and no quality
at the same time. That was the reason.
How simple it was. That's the mark of a high-quality theory. It doesn't just
answer the question in some complex round-about way. It dissolves the
question, so you wonder why you ever: asked it.
Biologically she's fine, socially she's pretty far down the scale,
intellectually she's nowhere.'
Wim comments:
To what extent is Lila (any human like this fictitional character) created
by biological, social and intellectual patterns of value then? Could we
say -using the second quote- that she is created mainly by biological
patterns of value, not (as 'socially she doesn't' have Quality) or to a
small extent (being 'pretty far down the scale') by social patterns of value
and not at all by intellectual patterns of values?
DMB gets involved:
I can see how the two quote might seem contradictory, but its not really
such a problem. I think the first one is expressed in such unusual terms
that it would just be too awkward and clumsy to persist in that kind of
language. I'd trip all over myself if I tried to express things in such a
manner, so I can hardly do anything but speak in normal and conventional
terms. And I think this is all Pirsig has done in the second quote and
throughout most of the book. The first one is about the nature of the self,
the self as a microcosm, as a product of the overall historical evolution of
quality. The second quote is more specifically about her and people like
her. And frankly, I find the return to more normal concepts very refreshing.
Wim continued:
'Since biological and social [and intellectual] patterns have almost nothing
to do with each other' I doubt if comparing the extent to which a person
(understood as a 'cohesion of changing static patterns' of value) is created
by patterns of each level is very useful. I'd say that a person 'is part of
patterns of value on different levels' instead of 'is composed of static
patterns of value on different levels'.
DMB says:
This is a good example of what I mean. Your re-phrasing is probably more
accurate is a way, but its too cumbersome to talk like that. I had to read
that short paragraph about six times before I was sure what it meant. Its
not worth it. Once the point is made I think we should move on and just say
people are made of static patterns. We can still avoid the whole "posession"
thing without getting all tangled up. We can't afford to assert outr
metaphysical assumptions in every sentence. We'd never get anything done.
Its just not practical.
WIM said:
If I and other contributors to this discussion tend to say that Lila (and
real life persons comparable to her) must also be part of intellectual
patterns of value, it is probably partly because of egalitarian sentiments,
the feeling that stating that anyone could NOT have access to intellectual
quality (whereas others have) would justify unequal rights. (If we can
distinguish between -mainly- biological, social and intellectual people, why
not give for instance voting rights exclusively to the intellectual people?
Wouldn't that make for better political decisions?)
DMB says:
I see. But this is easy to sort out. While I appreciate your egalitarian
sentiments and mostly agree, I don't think egalitarianism was ever meant to
imply that every person is of equal ability or that everyone has the same
attributes. The only sense in which we are equal is that we all have rights.
In spite of my tendency to elitism, I think we have to grant that even
foolish people have rights. Even those opposed to equal rights have rights.
Then there is the matter of actual ability as compared to potential ability.
We'd hope that Lila could grow, but no promises can be made.
DMB says:
I feel Pirsig to be on my side on this issue. Why else would he state (in
the same chapter 13, a few paragraphs before the 'intellectually she's
nowhere' quote) that even criminals should be treated as a 'source of
thought'?
('What makes killing [a criminal] immoral is that a criminal is not just a
biological organism. He is not even just a defective unit of society.
Whenever you kill a human being you are killing a source of thought too. A
human being is a collection of ideas, and these ideas take moral precedence
over a society. Ideas are patterns of value. They are at a higher level of
evolution than social patterns of value.')
DMB says:
The actuality and potentiality issue raises its head again here. Potential
is a huge factor, otherwise we might conclude that its ok to eat our
children, which would be gastly and immoral in too many ways to count.
Wim said:
I don't think that "intellectually she's nowhere" is 'merely' a rhetorical
statement, either. (Even if probably it was ALSO designed for effect.)
Pirsig also tried to convey some sort of truth.
I have trouble squaring it with 'It isn't Lila that has quality; it's
Quality that has Lila.', however. Pirsig's ways of conveying his truth not
always paint a clear picture of what he means for me. So I try to clarify
things by painting my own picture. Lila (or anyone) not participating at all
in intellectual patterns of value (whereas others do) would be difficult to
square with other parts of my picture (my intellectual reality). Given the
egalitarian sentiments you also expressed before, how do you resolve this?
DMB says:
As i already said, I don't think egalitarianism means that were all the
same. Uniformity would be a better word to describe such a thing and is
better suited to mass production techniques than to people. The suggestion
that all persons are of equal intelligence and equal talents flies in the
face of just about everything I've ever experienced. Some people are better
than others and in fact one of the main tasks of the intellectual is to make
distinctions and draw comparisons, not gloss over them. The difference
between Phaedrus and Lila, for example, is so striking and obvious that it
hardly needs to be discussed. Think of the differences between Ghandi and
Hitler or between Pol Pot and the Dhali Lama. If you show me a guy who
thinks Micheal Jordan and Danny DeVito are equal and the same and I'll show
you a guy who is either blind or foolish. Obviously, there are huge
differences.
Thanks,
DMB
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 : Mon Dec 02 2002 - 00:03:11 GMT