From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Mar 16 2005 - 00:11:46 GMT
All this talk about "pure" reminds me of Steve Martin's "Pure Drivel" book. It's not just drivel, it's pure drivel.
"Dolly defended me at a party. She was an artist who showed at the Whitney Biennial, so she had a certain outlook, a certain point of view, a certain understanding of things. She came into my life as a stranger who spoke up when I was being attacked by the cocktail types for being the publisher of The American Drivel Review. It wasn't drivel that I published, she explained to them, but rather the idea of drivel.
(snip a part)
As the publisher of A.D.R., I had never actually written the stuff myself. But the next morning I sat down and tossed off a few lines, and then nervously showed them to Dolly. She took them into another room, and I sat alone for several painful minutes. She came back and looked at me. "This is not just drivel," she exulted. "It's pure drivel."
It's also funny because he also talks a about WITTGENSTEIN'S BANANA in the book of Pure Drivel "A banana is flying first class from New York to L.A. Two scientists, one in each city, are talking on the phone about the banana. Because it is moving in relationship to its noun, the referent of the word *banana* never occupies one space, and anything that does not occupy one space does not exist. Therefore, a banana will arrive at JFK with no limousine into the city, even though the reservation was confirmed in L.A. "
Erin
Matt Kundert <pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dan,
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Dan said:
Ontologically speaking, experience is never direct.
...
The MOQ begins with experience, not pure experience, just experience.
Matt:
Okay, correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the distinct impression that
the words "direct" and "pure" were consistently used qualifiers for
experience throughout Pirsig's work, Northrop's work, and throughout
Anthony's work. And I was under the impression that some people (including,
for the most part, Pirsig) thought they were important, played some role in
the way we read Pirsig.
In fact, I just finished my review of Anthony's essay on the forum and most
of it revolves around criticizing the use of these qualifiers.
Are we suddenly giving up on these terms? If we are, I don't think we
should obscure the sea change that would be involved in interpreting Pirsig,
at least the change in the dominant opinion, particularly given that much of
my critique of Pirsig in the last few years has revolved around these terms
and I've received much animated derision over my "misunderstanding" of
Pirsig.
Don't get me wrong: I hope my interpretation becomes the dominant,
mainstream interpretation. But I was under the impression that I was the
minority and offering a dissenting opinion, not the dominant ideology.
Given that I could still be drastically wrong on any number of other issues,
what's up with immediate, pure, direct experience?
Matt
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 Mar 16 2005 - 00:15:12 GMT