From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Jul 27 2003 - 18:59:19 BST
Rick, Erin, Steve and all:
Rick said:
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.
dmb says:
Saying that the answer doesn't get to the bottom of it is not the same as
dismissing it. He's saying the answer is incomplete, not that it is
incorrect. This is from the very beginning of part three, where he develops
his ideas about DQ, especially as it relates to mysticism and insanity. He's
not taking back what he has already said about Lila in terms of static
quality, its just that now he's moving on the the issue of DQ. Lila not only
serves to contrast with socially dominated Rigel and the intellectually
dominated captain, but she also serves as an example of insanity.
Rick said: (Quotes refered to are below)
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?
dmb says:
You think the omission was designed to cover up a contradiction? I think
you're trying too hard here. I didn't include the last line simply because
it would have repeated what was included. Take another look. "She doesn't
even see social quality." and "she defines it entirely in biological terms"
mean the same thing. Its like the difference between saying, "She doesn't
even have three." and "She only has two." It amounts to the same thing.
Now if you want to complain about the difference between his "pretty far
down the scale" and his "entirely in bilogical terms" that's fine. I see a
small, but unmistakable discrepancy there. I don't think its a very big deal
or that its enough to dismiss his point. But please don't accuse me of
deception because this discrepancy was included for anyone to see.
#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."
Rick said:
Moreover, the book is sprinkled with references that indicate Lila has
intellectual values...
dmb says:
I don't think the quotes (deleted) indicate that at all. He's talking about
cellular intellegence, sexual urges and other biological qualities.
Rick said:
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?
dmb says:
Sorry. Again, I just don't see it. His comments are about a fully developed
human being. I don't think Pirsig is saying that all people are
intellectual. In fact, I'm sure that elsewhere he qualifies this assertion
by saying something like "or at least a POTENTIAL source of idea". I think
the assertion that all humans are able to percieve intellectual values
defies way too much of what Pirsig says about the conflict of values, the
codes, the evolutionary relationship between the levels. I mean, I think
that his descriptions of Lila, Rigel and the captain are consistent with all
that. This is why I keep insisting that he's answering the central queston.
(At least it is PART of the answer.) I mean, if he is trying to tell us why
people have differing perceptions of quality, and makes sharp distinctions
between the kinds of values that people have exhibited in the conflicts of
our history, does it then make sense to, in effect, erase all those
distinctions by saying that everyone shares these values? I think that
misses the point by a long shot.
Thanks for taking the 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 Jul 27 2003 - 19:01:04 BST