(Note to Keith--- I just read this post from Jon today and had to respond,
if you can't slip it through on the LS could you bump it over to the other
list.)
JON:
> Thanks Keith for letting this thread go on, though regrettably you're
> probably right that
> > we're nearing the end of fruitful discussion on it.
>
> However, I'm reluctant to let Rick have the last word.
>
RICK:
The feeling is quite mutual....
JON:
> I find it a little harder to accept that Pirsig was unaware of the
> Hindu Lila when he chose the name.
> In the book, he shows careful attention to the origins and roots of
> certain words (RTA) - surprising that he overlooked doing the same with
> the name "Lila".
RICK:
If by "Unaware" you mean that he had never heard of it.... who knows. But
if by unaware you mean it wasn't on his mind... then I reiterate the YOU ARE
WRONG.... By Pirsig's own words. He couldn't have said it anymore
straitfoward than he did... Lila is not drawn from the Vedas.
>
JON:
Furthermore, I would be extremely surprised if RMP's
> attention was not drawn also to "Lilith", the she-devil of Semitic
> mythology (even more relevant to the Lila character). If Pirsig didn't
> want his readers to make these connections, he should have changed
> Lila's name to something else.
RICK:
Maybe, but if Pirsig had called her "Mary" you would have thought it was an
allusion to the Virigin.... If he had called her "Eve" you would have said
"Adam".... If he had called her "Rebecca" you may have thought of Jacob's
biblical wife... If he had called her "Jane" you might have claimed it was
to represent how common she is.... if he had called her "Martha" you would
have said "Washington"....etc.etc.
My point is that every name has connections in literature and antiquity....
Maybe you think Pirsig should have just made up a name from scratch... one
with no previous connotations....?
It's all Good,
Rick
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:33 GMT