Though Keith has expressed a request to end this thread, I feel that by
naming it an argument we are making a mistake.
Rick, Jonathan, Keith, please bare with me just a litle more, to explain my POV:
Jonathan wrote
>I cannot believe that RMP remained unaware of the Hindu Lila
>while his manuscript was being prepared for publication (a long process,
>involving lots of discussion and careful reading by author and
>publisher). 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.
>
>It's a pity that this thread has now degenerated into arguing about
>Pirsig's conscious and unconscious intent. I had hoped that we might
>learn something by exploring the myths themselves.
I think it is a mistake to assume that an action done unintentionaly, must
therfore arise from the unconscious. This assumption is based on a
psychological model of mind, which is not necessarily true, and may very
well be in conflict with the MOQ.
The questions that arise over LILA's name are very relevant though:
a. Did he intend the Hindu meaning?
b. If not, was he anware of it?
c. Does it make sense that he would miss such an obvious connection?
d. Should we believe what he wrote (that he was anaware of the hindu meaning)?
e. What motive might he have had for making such a statement?
There is a very fine distinction, not always easy to make, between the
meaning that is found in the words, and the meaning that are given to them
by the reader. The act of reading is not passive. The reader must take part
in the giving of meaning to the text. Therefore, I think that looking for
the TRUE meaning of a name or a phrase is a bit fruitless. It may turn into
an argument not unlike some quarrels common amongst certain religious
circles over an interpertation of a biblical text.
BTW - this reminds me, did any of you people know that LILA in hebrew means
NIGHT? I don't want to attribute that meaning to RP because I am quite
certain he is not familiar with the hebrew meaning, nor biblical text's for
that matter - but it's an interesting anecdote.
Maimonaides, (a famous Jewish philospher of the middle ages) in a letter
about his book "A Guide to the Perplexed" (otherwise refered to as "The
Perplexer of Guides") speakes of "mistakes" that appear in a text. His point
of view is that there are two different kinds of mistakes:
1. Simple negligence - quite common amongst common writers of common books.
2. In some rare books, of the rare guides (the sages), those who chose every
word with care and deliberation, sometimes an "error" appears. These Errors
are there for the wise only. They are the hidden signs left by the author
for the seekers of truth to follow.
May I suggest my point of view that:
A. RP is a writer of the second kind.
B. The thread is worth following, even if it means Questioning RP's
intentions in not telling us (or even himself) the whole truth about LILA.
I speculate that he defies the Hindu meaning of LILA so that the we will not
get "hooked" on the "divine play" meaning, and loose all other points of
view. It is very important for him to distinguish LILA from any other
philosophy, certainly the Hindu.
Miv
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:33 GMT