Re: MD Intellectually Nowhere

From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Jul 27 2003 - 05:37:55 BST

  • Next message: Steve Peterson: "RE: RE: MD The Giant (types of patterns/types of people)"

    Hey David,
    This weekend's very tight on time for me, so please excuse my brevity....

    D
    > It seems that a very specific, obvious and concrete case has been placed
    > before the eyes and yet it has only been ignored and otherwise danced
    > around. The responses have been unresponsive. Even yours strikes me as
    quite
    > a reach and a little off the topic. I mean, does the book repeatedly say
    > Lila has no intellectual quality or not? Yes, it does. That is
    > "indisputable".

    R
    No, it's not. First off, Erin has directly responded to you by pointing out
    that Phaedrus himself DISMISSES that conclusion in the first paragraph of
    chapter 24, "The answer that Phaedrus had thought of before, 'Biologically
    she does, socially she doesn't,' still didn't get all the way to the bottom
    of it. There was more than society and biology involved." Got that? He
    says that the answer you keep harping about DOESN'T GET ALL THE WAY TO THE
    BOTTOM OF IT. Why are you so passionate (almost to the point of
    belligerence with Steve) about defending an incomplete answer that even the
    author didn't put his weight behind?

    Furthermore, let's take a CLOSER look at those quotes you chopped up...

    #1) "Does Lila have Quality? Biologically she does, socially she doesn't.
    Obviously! Evolutionary morality just splits that whole question open like a
    watermelon. .. Biologically she's fine, socially she's pretty far down the
    scale, INTELLECTUALLY SHE'S NOWHERE."

    #2) "She missed the whole point of everything. She's after Quality, like
    everybody else, but she defines it entirely in biological terms. She DOESN'T
    SEE INTELLECTUAL QUALITY AT ALL. Its outside her range."

    R
    I would like to point out that you omitted the last line of quote #2, which
    was "She doesn't even see social quality (see ch17 p246)." I wonder DMB,
    did you omit that on purpose because including it would have raised a
    contradiction between the two quotes if they are to be taken as literally as
    you say? After all, if Lila LITERALLY "doesn't even see social quality",
    the same way she LITERALLY "doesn't see intellectual quality", then she
    should be "socially nowhere" also. Yet, he didn't say that, did he? He
    said she was socially pretty far-down the scale. Do you think Pirsig and
    his editors are that sloppy? Or just that you're being too literal?

    Moreover, the book is sprinkled with references that indicate Lila has
    intellectual values...

    PIRSIG (LILA ch15 p228)
    "The mental Lila had tried to die but the cellular Lila had wanted to
    live....The intelligence of the mind can't think of any reason to live, but
    it goes on anyway because the intelligence of the cells can't think of any
    reason to die....That explained what happened tonight. The first
    intelligence out there in the cabin disliked him and still did. It was this
    second intelligence that had come in and made love. The first Lila had
    nothing to do with it...."

    PIRSIG (LILA ch15 p223)
    Phaedrus became aware again of Lila's body next to him, and again the gentle
    rocking of the boat. That was the only thing that had happened all day, the
    way their bodies paid no attention to all their social and intellectual
    differences.

    etc,etc, etc

    R
    And finally David.....

    PIRSIG (LILA ch13 p185)
    A human being is a collection of ideas... Ideas are patterns of value. They
    are at a higher level of evolution than social patterns of value.

    R
    Catch that one? A "human being" is a collection of ideas that are at a
    higher level than social patterns (meaning they can only be 4th level). So
    now I put an "indisputable" proposition to you DMB: If Lila is a human
    being, she must (in some sense) be a collection of 4th level ideas. If
    she's not (in some sense) a collection of 4th level ideas, she's not a human
    being. So which is it David? Is Lila a human being or not?

    take care
    rick

    There is no female mind. The brain is not an organ of sex. As well speak of
    a female liver. - C.P. Gilman

    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 : Sun Jul 27 2003 - 05:50:27 BST