From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Sun Jul 27 2003 - 06:23:00 BST
Hi DMB,
> Steve said:
> The forest of static patterns that constitute Lila include pretty good
> biological patterns, pretty bad social patterns, and horrible intellectual
> patterns.
>
> dmb says:
> Pirsig says "she doesn't see intellectual quality at all"
I think it was Phaedrus who said this. Lila certainly did not see the same intellectual quality as Phaedrus.
>and you say she
> does, but only the "horrible" intellectual patterns? OK. Pretending for the
> moment that there is such a thing as pretty bad values or horrible quality,
> you're still just contradicting Pirsig.
Do you really have to pretend that some patterns are of higher quality than others?
>Sure, there is always room for a
> variety of good interpretations, but this is just a contradiction. He says
> she ain't got none and you insist that she does.
Again, the difference in our interpretations is simply that you read him as talking about 'how many quality?' to which you answer 'none' whereas I see him talking about high or low quality. To me "nowhere" means very low quality in this case.
>
> Steve said:
> Actually, I don't think you think in terms of patterns at all though you
> claim that you do. I still think your confusion lies in thinking of fitting
> these quotes into a 'types of people' interpretation of the MOQ levels which
> is completely inappropriate here.
>
> dmb says:
> Inappropriate?! Fitting these quotes into a 'types of people'
> interpretation?! Dude, I think you're the one who is confused here. That is
> what the author does throughout the book and that's exactly what he's doing
> in the quotes! He's answering the central question about the title
> character. He's talking about his evolutionary morality in terms of a
> specific person. "Does Lila have quality?" Why do people have different
> perceptions of quality? Why does she fail to see how tacky and fake that
> boat is? Why does Rigel fail to see any quality in Lila, while the Captain
> saw that she did?
"Why does Rigel fail to see any quality in Lila?" Are you now going to argue that Rigel can't see biological quality at all? That he doesn't participate in biological patterns?
>Sorry, but I think your "interpretation" ridiculous.
Back at you.
>You
> haven't given us one good reason why anyone should think Pirsig means she
> does when he says she doesn't.
Is this the royal 'us'? I haven't heard anyone else saying that Lila does not participate in intellectual patterns of value while at least a couple of others have argued against you that she does.
I think that most of us in this dg would agree that with the exception of the severely mentally handicapped, all humans are forests of static patterns of all four types.
Pirsig says intellect is simply thinking. You would have us believe that Lila was incapable of thought.
Simply thinking,
Steve
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 - 06:23:48 BST