Hi Rick, Lee, Andreas and all,
RICK
>IMHO, that first sentance is "simply" a rhetorical setup...
With respect, let's not assume anything to be simple before we even
start.
LEE>
> As Freud once said sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
We can't take this view if we act on the assumption that every word (of
Lila) is written by God, as suggested in
http://www.freelance-academy.org/slowread.htm
> I'm not sure that ideas
> of solipsism appear in lila....
Actually, I think we can see an ANTI-solipsist position from that
opening sentence.
"Lila didn't know he was here."
Why "Lila" - Pirsig spent several years studying at Benares, and surely
didn't pick the name accidentally. The Lila of Hinduism is the "play of
God" that gives the illusion of everyday reality. One can therefore read
the first sentence to mean that the "play of god" goes on irrespective
of the presence of "HE" being there to perceive it - an anti-solipsist
position.
ANDREAS
>The attention is focused on Lila. ' He ' is not
>present in Lila's conciousness. 'He' has no name. A male without a
name.
>Present but outside of the realms of Lila's awareness.
This way of reading produces an alternate antisolipsist interpretation.
"He was there" irrespective of whether the sleeping woman Lila (or
anyone else for that matter) was aware of him or not.
The only haven for the fervent solipsist is to say that this whole
opening scene is in the mind of the author etc. (an approach
demonstrated in "Sophie's World" by Norwegian author Jostein Gaarder).
Lee, are you still sure that "a cigar is just a cigar" applies in this
case?
Jonathan
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:33 GMT