Hi David B. and all,
JONATHAN
> > I must be extremely dense, because I still don't understand your
> > argument as to why that teepee experience should be considered mystical
> > and the bar-room experience not.
> >
DAVID B.
> Yes, I'm beginning to wonder if my efforts are in
> vain. The two contrasting paragraphs that describe the two contrasting
> scenes are not MY characterizations, those are the colors Pirsig uses to
> help convey the differences. I hoped that you would recognize from the
> material we just read. You didn't do your homework, ...
David, I think that you are misunderstanding my point.
I agree completely that Pirsig uses certain expressions to paint the teepee
experience as meaningfull and the bar-room experience as "empty". You quote
several of those expressions.
However, I still don't see the real substantive difference - if you strip away
all those prejorative words that Pirsig inserts, the difference between teepee
and bar-room should still be apparent. IMHO it isn't.
DAVID B.
> The bar scene is about getting drunk and getting laid. The result is
> social conflict and construction of his metaphysics has to be put on hold.
> The teepee scene was about discovering his other half and spinning vast
> intellectual webs. This is what Pirsig tells us explicitly. And I think its
> pretty clear that the results of the bar we're good only on the biological
> level, but it was socially negative, intellectually negative, except as an
> example, and spirituslly useless.
> The results of the teepee were socially
> good, intellectually productive and spiritually satisfying. Ironically, the
> teepee experience was more genuinely intimate than the sexual experience.
If we look at it historically, it took Pirsig nearly 30 years to publish Lila.
For sure it was put on hold - and may have benefitted.
The "Lila interruption" is very important, and Pirsig makes it a dominant part
of his Novel.
Let me put it this way, which would have the greater effect on Lila the novel?:
1. Editing out the stuff about Indians and the teepee ceremony.
2. Editing out all all reference to Lila and the bar-room.
NOW do you get my point?
JONATHAN
> > As for Lila's fake painted fingernails, are they more fake than the
> > paint on the Indians' faces? ...
DAVID B.
> Again, these characterizations are Pirsig's, not
> mine. ...
[snip] no argument here [snip]
> He's telling us which kind of
> experience has real quality and which is just a cheap knock-off of quality.
That's what he tells us in words, but you also have to read between the lines by
looking at the events Pirsig chooses to include in Lila, and the behaviour of
Phaedrus in the novel.
The irony is that it is Lila's FAKENESS that is superficial.
JONATHAN
> > As a final point, I note that Pirsig's novel presenting the MoQ was not
> > entitled "John Wooden Leg" nor "Ten Bears" and not named "Dusenbury". He
> > called the book "Lila", the name of the woman he picks up in the bar.
> >
DAVID B.
> Oh, please. These characters are being discussed
> simply because they are in the first three chapters. And he calls the book
> Lila because of the central question, Does Lila have quality?
David, I think you have just restated my point. The central question of the book
revolves around Lila.
> > ROGER asked us to define our view on mysticism ...and here I agree with
Dictionary definitions with JONATHAN's comments [bracketed].
> > "1a. A spiritual discipline aiming at union with the divine through deep
> > meditation or trancelike contemplation ..."
> > [Not a useful definition unless we can agree what the divine is]
> > b. The experience of such communion, as described by mystics.
> > [Now I see - for a definition of mysticism, just ask a mystic!]
> >
DAVID B.
> Think of the "divine" as the ultimate mystery
> behind the world of visible things, not some god or the other. So instead of
> "union with the divine" we call it "indentification with DQ". Yes, just ask
> a mystic. Pirsig's Radical empiricism ranks this kind of direct experience
> as one of the most real kinds of experience.
David, I don't disagree with the definition - just find it circular and
unsuitable as a foundation for further development. "just ask a mystic" indeed!
What sort of definition is that?
[more dictionary]
> > 2. Any belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or
> > intellectual apprehension but central to being and directly accessible
> > to intuition.
> > [Rejected by radical empiricism which regards intuition as a legitimate
> > part of perception]
DAVID B.
> Um, if it is directly accessable to intuition, and
> radical empiricism regards intuition as legitimate, how is it then rejected?
> You mixed silly scoundrel.
Look again David. If intuition is considered a valid part of perception, then
you can't have something being both BEYOND perceptual apprehension, but
ACCESSIBLE to intuition (as the dictionary definition requires).
> > 3. Confused and groundless speculation; superstitious self-delusion.
> > [Obviously you favourite Dave;-)]
David, I'm baiting you;-)
JONATHAN
> >One solution is to avoid the word mysticism altogether.
> >
> [David Buchanan] Avoid the word?! By your reasoning we should drop
> the word metaphysics too. Dictionaries are inadequate with that word for our
> purposes, so we'l just have to discuss the OQ instead of the MOQ. Please
> tell me that you're kidding.
That's a technique that has often worked for me before in the Lila Squad/MF/MD.
When a word is so loaded and is repeatedly interpreted in many different ways,
it is best to find an alternative.
Jonathan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:41 BST