From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Aug 19 2005 - 01:26:14 BST
Hi Paul,
Your notes from Pirsig contrasting the styles of writing ZMM and Lila.
Really interesting. It's interesting to see them expressed, because I
believe it is apparent from analysis of the books. One of the reasons
incidentally (Ant) why I saw researching his biography and intents
(where he was coming from) at the time of writing, was much more than
mere "gossip".
You conclude Paul ....
Yes, but it seems to me that both rhetoric and dialectic are needed.
You're right of course, and I already agreed ... when I say
[MoQ] needs to recognise it's true roots and original rhetorical
holistic intent in ZMM.
I'm not being "exclusive" of logic. I'm saying it mustn't forget that
important holistic component on which it was grounded - it would not
be MoQ without it. (This is me reacting to all the logical analytical
debate on MD.)
When asked by David H "What's wrong with logic ?"
My answer was "Nothing as far as it goes."
<Rant>
It's a problem with this style of debate - by defending or remiding of
an opposing issue, one is assumed to be asserting the extreme opposite
exclusively - damn binary debates - one of the problems with
dialectic. As I keep saying our dufferences become all too obvious,
but our common ground, the static latches we can build on get
flattened in the process.
</Rant>
Not aimed at you Paul.
Ian
On 8/16/05, Paul Turner <paul@turnerbc.co.uk> wrote:
> Ian,
>
> >One of the problems I have (and it seems Sam) is that
> >Lila mostly uses SQ habits (like logical dialectic) to make its MoQ
> >case, so that people happy with those kinds of arguments could be got
> >off first base. Many people who may have essentially already "got it"
> >from ZMM (MoQ un-named, much more Zen) were therefore unsatisfied with
> >the treatment it got in Lila.
>
> Paul: My own feeling is that ZMM puts all intellectual patterns in context
> whereas LILA, from about Chapter 11, is the elaboration of the 'content' of
> the intellectual pattern that is 'the MOQ' and this necessarily talks about
> static patterns and does so in a mostly logical, intellectual way. Logical
> inference works for much of the 'mundane' world of static quality so it is
> an extremely valuable skill when it comes to weaving intellectual webs.
>
> It's interesting that many people find LILA 'cold' after reading ZMM.
> Pirsig's own views on the two books are also interesting:
>
> "ZMM was a rather inspirational book; it made everybody feel better in the
> end. LILA is a confrontational book; everybody in it dislikes everybody
> else; nobody understands anybody else; everybody's fur is constantly getting
> rubbed the wrong way including the fur of many readers. Phaedrus has
> changed from a romantic mystery figure to a rather disagreeable
> intellectual. The setting is grotesque and depressing and so is the plot.
> So why, you may wonder, did I write it that way?
>
> Originally the intent was to forget about quality and write about Indians
> but books have a mind of their own, *they tell you* what they want. For
> some reason this book just wanted to be cross and depressing. I never knew
> why when I was writing it but I think now that maybe I subconsciously felt
> that the MOQ was way too important to be sugar-coated. Its primary concern
> is not what is popular - popularity is a social goal - its primary concern
> is truth. When you say two times two is four you should not have to say it
> in a way that is pleasing to an audience - it's four no matter how crossly
> you say it. The feeling as I wrote LILA was, look, this is what I believe,
> take it or leave it, and it was just that kind of declaration all the way
> through and a lot of people have left it."
>
> "In ZMM the narrative tends to dominate the intellectual part of the book -
> the metaphysics - but in LILA the metaphysics clearly dominates the
> narrative. The three main characters are metaphysical chess-pieces. Lila
> embodies biological values, Richard Rigel embodies social values, and
> Phaedrus embodies intellectual values. The reason none of them get along is
> because their values are mismatched." [Pirsig, AHP Conference, 1993]
>
> >Don't get me wrong, I buy the "Lila was necessary" argument to flesh
> >out MoQ, but having built it up, for academics to butcher by analysis,
> >it needs to recognise it's true roots and original rhetorical holistic
> >intent in ZMM.
>
> Paul: Yes, but it seems to me that both rhetoric and dialectic are needed.
>
> Regards
>
> Paul
>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> A monk asked Chao Chou, "'The Ultimate Path has no difficulties - just avoid
> picking and choosing. As soon as there are words and speech, this is
> picking and choosing.' So how do you help people, Teacher?"
>
> Chou said, "Why don't you quote this saying in full?" The monk said, "I
> only remember up to here."
>
> Chou said, "It's just this: 'This Ultimate Path has no difficulties - just
> avoid picking and choosing.'"
>
>
>
>
> 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 : Fri Aug 19 2005 - 01:59:13 BST