From: Erin N. (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Wed Jan 29 2003 - 03:45:53 GMT
>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
>Erin,
>
>Erin said:
>Well I know this has been pointed out many
>times before but isn't it fair to consider
>that quote is from Phaedrus not Pirsig's
>perspective. I think its not very good to put so much
>weight on a single quote by a character.
>Especially what Pirsig said about identifying
>him with a character.
>
>Matt:
>Fair enough. This actually makes interpreting ZMM all the more interesting
>with the dynamic between the narrator and Phaedrus. But then, of course,
>being as there is no Pirsig in the books, only Phaedrus (as continuous
>through to Lila), it might be fairer to say that the MoQ is a creation of
>Phaedrus, but where does that leave us with the philosophy? Does it change
>it all that much? It may create built-in irony in the books (which only
>fuels my preferred reading), but what about the SODV paper? There is no
>Phaedrus there and I'm not sure the philosophy changes all that much.
>
>And its not just that quote. There are many other places (of which Platt
>has tapped the tip of the iceberg) that Pirsig talks like this. The "now
>and forever" quote simply gives us a suggestion as to how we should
>interpret all the other more ambiguous places. Now, I favor reading out
>all the "now and forever" parts, but I still want to insist that we keep in
>mind the ambiguities.
>
>Matt
>
Can you give me an example where you think
Pirsig suggests you should take MOQ in a
absolute sense. Sometimes I think Platt stayed up one night
going page by page looking for the word absolute and probably did a little jig
when he finally found it.
Erin
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 : Wed Jan 29 2003 - 03:38:09 GMT