LS Re: over-ripe

From: Lee Lawrence (LeeL@aspin.co.uk)
Date: Tue May 23 2000 - 12:45:14 BST


Diana,

Thanks for the info Diana. A little slow responding as I've been out and
about rather than
sat at my PC. Glad to see that it made it on to the list.

Prejudice is a funny thing. As I read this post I felt angry as it was
clearly nonsense yet
I'd hardly started reading it. Why should I feel angry, somebody had simply
forwarded this
for my interest? Little alarm bells start ringing. This probably means that
I dislike the
suggestion as it attacks the fairly comfortable white-middleclass-male
lifestyle I inhabit and
my mind is trying not to think about this but simply drum up a few
rationalisations. This doesn't
mean the points are true simply that they may be inconvenient for me.

It's true that 'It's completely unfair to express disgust at her' for
natural ageing yet fairness is
an intellectual reaction whilst this disgust is a low-level biological
reaction. Biology isn't fair.
Sometimes the most terrible thoughts and feelings go through our minds,
things that our intellects
rebel against. I'm not a Freudian but I don't think that pretending that
these things don't happen
is the way to go; if I don't acknowledge what goes on inside of me how can I
select actions and words
are appropriate to use?

An interesting point is that his intellect seemed revolted by Lila yet he
still felt
sexual attraction. This conflict of biology and intellect over the matter
of sex is
hardly new but does fit with Pirsig's later levels of MOQ. The suggestion
of institutionalized
sexism brings in a social level too. that with in a single person can be
conflicts of biological,
social and intellectual levels.

The book operates on the social level as well as the intellectual level so
the social context
in which the book is written shouldn't be ignored.

The answer to Pirsig's apparent sexism? Possibly he simply didn't 'see' it
in the same way I didn't
see it when I read it. We humans like to think that we are rational yet I
know that I act as much
on social conventions, selfish biology or plain old stupidity and ignorance
as on careful reasoning.
That isn't a good excuse I know but it could be the truth (The idea of
Pirsig's acting irrationally
goes against the 'godhood principle' of slow reading, I'll take the flaming
as read!).

David,

I agree with your comments on the opening sentence and following discussion
on that. This was what I
was trying to say only better put. In the true definition of slow-reading
the sexism issue is
off-topic as it clearly isn't part of the author's intent to discuss this.
Still the author can
inadvertently raise issues that are of interest and bear discussion. If the
group is to be open to
newbies, of which I am one, then some latitude is needed. I don't envy
Keith's job in deciding what
to let through!

Probably 'techno-cyber math geeks' makes a pretty good description for me.
I'll give the thing another
listen.

Jonathan,

Pretty good summary of the state of play in your post.

'So instead of voting to move on, let's "vote" by not posting. Let's say
that we give each Chapter a minimum of 2 weeks and then extend it until
the posts dry up e.g. for 3 days.'

Sounds reasonable, I'm sure that Keith's commonsence will dictate when is a
good time to prod people
into the next chapter.

Lee

MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:33 GMT