From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Aug 03 2003 - 19:47:34 BST
Steve and all MOQers:
Steve:
She doesn't have intellectual quality. Pirsig said that Quality has Lila.
dmb said:
Oh. Right. I don't know that anyone has explicitly said otherwise. We've
just been following the phrases from the quotes. But I think we all agree
that quality is not a possession owned by the individual. Its the stuff of
which we are composed, so to speak. But even there we have to ask, "what
kind?". What is Lila made of? What's she all about? (And even though our
exchange has been quite heated, I'm thrilled this we've finally gotten to
this central question. It allows us to discuss some of the literary elements
for a change, which is about half the book. I wish there were more posters
on the topic.)
Steve:
I agree that she is not after intellectual or social quality. She is
dominated by biological value. There is no disagreement on dominance or what
type of person she is.
dmb says:
Really? Well, that's all I was trying to say.
Steve:
I don't see why I need to restate the arguments that others have already
made.
dmb says:
Yea. I get that alot. Its the kind of brush off I see far too often. Why
restate it? Maybe because they are not your arguments. Maybe because they
did not convince in the first place. Or maybe they were already addressed
and defeated. Maybe because I have to read dozens of posts every weekend and
shouldn't have to hunt for the other guy's case. Maybe becasue I want you to
show me, in your own words, the line of reasoning. Maybe from now on I will
just assume that such brusher-offers just are not capable of making their
case. Do you subscribe to the notion that those who can't explain an idea
don't really understand that idea? I do. In fact, I think its interesting to
ask questions just to test posters. It has a way of weeding out the B.S. Or
at least it makes people really work their way through it in a methodical
way that can then be reproduced here in writing. That's what its all about,
no?
Steve said:
I just don't equate types of patterns of value with types of people. Can you
see a difference?
dmb says:
No. I don't equate the two. You've made this point many times. Let's go
there. I wonder what you mean, exactly. Could you explain it? Tell me why
these differences are so important. (Forgive me, but I fully expect another
brush off on this one.)
Steve said:
Do you think Lila can be convinced of something with a rational argument?
Not at the point when she thought the doll was her baby, course. But before
that, could she understand reasoning like 'to make French fries you'll have
to buy some potatoes'? Could she see the value in that statement over the
statement, 'to make French fries you'll have to read Kant'? Or the value of
2+2=4 over 2+2=5? If so, then she responds to intellectual quality as all
humans do. To me it's as simple as that. Simply thinking. Sure, it takes
much more than that to earn societies label of being "an intellectual," but
I'm talking about a species of value, not a social distinction.
dmb says:
This is very easy to understand. But it seems to me that you're only making
a case that Lila can preform some basic mental operations, that she has some
cognitive ability. That's fine. But I don't think this shows that she is
capable of responding to intellectual quality. The pyramid designers were
very intelligent and had to preform all sorts of sophisticated mental
operations, if you will, but the whole point of that task was religious.
Equating intelligence or cognitive ability with intellectual values is the
mistake. That's why "simply thinking" is such a disasterous definition.
(There is another example of a brush-off. I've been asking those who use
that definition to provide the context by way of explanation. So far I got
nada.)
But more to the point. In spite of Lila's ability to slice potatoes and cut
her own meat, I think her behavior speaks volumes about her lack of ability
to percieve intellectual values. Consider just this one point, will you? She
is sailing down the Hudson with one of the most fascinating and famous
philosophers alive today. And how does she see things? She thinks he's a sad
sack! Can you imagine? Its hard to imagine how anyone could be more
oblivious. Intellectually speaking, I would describe Lila as a bimbo without
a clue. And who hasn't met people like that?
Steve said:
No animal will experience the low quality of an illogical statement, but any
human adult will. What kind of quality could I be talking about in
referring to an illogical statement or a rational one if not intellectual
quality?
dmb says:
Right. Logic and rationality are in the right neighborhood. But I'd again
point out that cognitive skills are not quite the same thing as values. I
mean, it seems to me that they are only a necessary, but insufficient
condition. You gotta have it, but its not enough. Hitler, for example,
displayed anti-intellectual values in the extreme, but this is not the same
as saying he was stupid or whatever.
Steve said:
If Lila can value reason and give reasoned arguments to others then she
participates in intellectual patterns of value to some degree as I
understand the intellectual level. If you have a better definition, please
tell me.
dmb says:
Well, there are rational arguments by well informed thinkers and then there
are childish and defensive rationalizations. I see Lila doing the latter,
but not the former. I see this kind of thing all the time. There has been a
debate about gay marriage in the media in recent days. I see lots of very
clever cases being made by perfectly intelligent people. But some of them
are asserting social level values (homosexuality is a sin) over and above
intellectual values (equality of rights, equality before the law, privacy
rights). A Yale philosophy graduate with the largest vocabulary in the world
and a 180 IQ could make the case that its a sin and it would still just be
social values that are being asserted.
Erin asked:
How do you determine whether somebody has achieved the intellectual level?
dmb said:
By their words, deeds, desires, professed beliefs and such. Its not easy...
like trying to determine what motivates a person, or what they really value
most. In fact, its exactly like that. ...
Steve says:
Can you take this further so I may know what you think an intellectual
pattern of value is? Is there a reason why you think it is important for the
Lila character to not participate in intellectual patterns of value at all?
dmb says:
Pirsig gives examples like rights and freedoms, democracy and such and says
that these are essentially aimd at protecting the freedom of intellect
itself, freedom of the evolutionary process itself. In a more nuts-n-bolts
sort of way, as you mentioned, logic and rationality and such are also part
of the 4th level. All the sciences and academic fields, obviously, would
have to be included. I suppose it would be hard to overstate the value of
curiosity in all this. Even the cold spockish things, like empirical
evidence, logic and rationality, if you look at the purpose behind them, its
easy to see that they're aimed at providing a certain kind of honesty,
clarity and openmindedness. Then the morality and beauty of it starts to
come into view. Pirsig sites lots of examples, but we need not stop there. I
think its perfectly all right to apply the basic idea in the examination of
anything and everything. Whew! And that only begins to answer the first
question. Now the second one...
The reason I keep saying its important to see what's going on with this
character have already been stated repeatedly. She is the title character.
pirsig presents the question about her as a central one. Her function in the
story demonstrates in a close up fashion what Pirsig is saying about the
larger structure of his evolutionary morality. It suppose nobody will
dispute the suggestion that Lila the fictional character is key to Lila the
book. But let me add some detail because all this has already been said and,
amazing as it is to me, it has not convinced you. ... Think of what Pirsig
says about the hippies. There was something Dynamic going on for a while and
in some places, but it degenerated into the biological, sex and drugs and
all that. Lila is no hippie, but we can see in her an up close example of a
biologically dominated person. Its a more intimate look at what would
otherwise be a sociological observation. Or think of the idea that social
level values are supposed to guide and control biological values. You can't
talk crime away with the intellect. It can't speak directly to the
biological. The social level has to do that. How does he put it? Cops and
armies have always controled vice criminals at the point of a gun, or
something like that? Anyway, its no accident that Rigel and Lila go off
together at the end of the book. He takes her under his wing. (It works in
the real world too. High crime areas can be improved by the presence of a
church in the neighborhood.) That's what I mean when I insist that these
characters, their words and deeds, are consistent with the larger structure
of the MOQ. They serve to demonstrate the structure of the MOQ in a close up
and personal way. And this is so we might actually be able to recognize the
values that are presented to us in real life. And if Pirsig is right, our
ability to make moral choices depends on that ability.
Thanks for your time,
dmb
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 Aug 03 2003 - 19:48:28 BST