Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Mon, 23 Feb 1998 10:04:36 +0100
Greetings Keith, and welcome to the Squad!
First to the pronunciation of LILA. I asked Pirsig about it shortly
after publication and he said it was like "lilac" and that..."it was
the unsubtlety of the lilac odour and the hardiness of the bush that
helped suggest her name to me". Does this sound like your
phonetic "lie-luh" ? Somewhere I have read that he did not know
about the lila of Hindu mythology, but it's quite a coincidence
when one reads the passage you cite.
The arguments you bring contra SOM and pro MOQ are just right on and
shows that you have a firm grasp of the problem. I can only affirm
what you write about most people being oblivious to the fundamental
weakness that (fails to) underpin the Subject/Object universe. They
simply don't see any problem or if they do, believe it to be some
built-in riddle to thwart the human "hubris". (In the old days when
everything was seen in a biblical context, it was the proof for
God's wisdom).
Only a "maniac" like Phaedrus would charge head on into the monstrous
task of unmasking the foggy monster - and then - help me God -
presenting an alternative!. The Quality idea is just exasperating; It
is megalomaniac to the hilt, but simultaneously it does away with the
SOM paradoxes as if by magic. I try to check my tendency to
hero-worship Pirsig, there are other great thinkers (Hugo Alroe
and I have spoken about Charles Peirce who was a kind of Quality
forerunner) but Pirsig's simple yet genial stroke is unique in
the history of philosophy. Remember the passage in LILA where P cites
Poincaré's question why so few understand "reality"? Here lies the
key to the resistance.
It takes a long time to raise the various pages of the LS site (at
times) at my end too.
Bo
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:48 CEST