Foci,
"
Phaedrus: What's the purpose of staying up all night?
Dusenberry: Visions
Phaedrus: From the fire?
Dusenberry: There's a sacramental food that you take
that induces them. It's called peyote
The Indians who use it regard it as a quicker and surer
way of arriving at the condition reached in the traditional
'vision quest' where an Indian goes out into isolation and
fasts and prays and meditates for days in the darkness
of a sealed lodge until the Great Spirit reveals itself to
him and takes over his life.
"
What we have here is the native American version of the
Eastern search for enlightenment. The mythology
surrounding it is different, but the method of isolation,
deprivation, meditation is the same. And in both cultures
it's regarded as an awakening to truth or an expansion of
awareness. This is what Phaedrus is embarking on when
he agrees to participate in the ceremony.
But then the focus shifts. He starts talking about the Indian
influence on American culture, especially the notion of
freedom of the individual. And I think he's right. Human
rights, democracy and freedom are more closely associated
with America than any other country. And he shows how
they came from the Indians. Probably right here again.
And this is all good and important, but it's rather at a tangent
to the search for the Great Spirit. Freedom of the individual
is an intellectual idea which freed us from the social level. Like
I said, all well and good, but mysticism is more than that.
Anyway my point is that he starts off looking for dynamic
quality and ends up comparing social and intellectual patterns.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now for some comments on other people's posts
(... help, I sound like Bodvar;-)
Matt Coughlan wrote:
>Dusenberry is an awesome character because I've been thinking about how
>things get into the world. (If I digress, I'm sorry.)
Of all the characters in LILA Dusenberry is definitely
the one I'd most like to have round for dinner. Lila is
boring and stupid, Phaedrus is aloof and insenstive and
Rigels is a prissy snob. Ugh, not really a bunch of charmers
are they;-)
But Dusenberry is warm and friendly, sociable, yet
unconventional. He's not a caricature like the other three,
he's a real person. He's basically a social person but, unlike
Rigel, he's creative intellectually as well. He's just not
intellectual enough to invent a metaphysics from scratch.
It's true that the perfect research project on Indians
would have been Dusenberry and Phaedrus working
as a team. Dusenberry to get the information socially and
Phaedrus to analyse it intellectually. It's a pity Dusenberry
died before it could be completed.
I think this illustrates the dependency the levels have on
each other which is a key element in the MOQ. The
intellectual level is redundant without the social level.
Jaap wrote
>I think before you examen the whole teepee "thing" you first have to find the
>place of mysticism in moq, is it more Dynamic than intellect? Pirsig seems to
>imply that.
Exactly what I thought when I re-read the teepee scene, see above.
EWenn wrote:
> Look at what happened to DusenberryÌs objective
>anthros. They didn't get very far. They approached the
>anthropology of the Indians with objectivity and
>intellect at the forefront. For Dusenberry,
>experiencing the Indians was paramount and
>intellectualizing was secondary.
This business of not being objective is another
thread that Pirsig ties into chap 3. I see it as a precusor
to the trashing of the SOM. He's paving the way
by showing us what's wrong with objectivity.
Dusenberry "loving" his Indians is an example of dynamic
experience. Dusenberry isn't separate from the Indians,
he's involved in some kind of dynamic interaction with them,
and somehow Dusenberry knew this was important
even though he couldn't say why
>To experience the
>Dynamic, the intellectual patterns must be Hung Up.
>But, we are saved the paradox of intellectually
>discussing MOQ through the example of the Peyote ceremony.
>Phaedrus had the impression of being two
>people; the wild person who finally felt at home and
>the good analytic person who was able to spin the
>web of connections and insights. What is important is
>that, at this moment, the analytic intellectual
>person was unencumbered by the pre-existing static
>patterns of thought.
I think this is a very interesting point. Dynamic Quality can
take the form of intellectual insight, amongst
other things? When Phaedrus has his epiphany
about the American personality it is a Dynamic
insight, so the vision quest has been realized.
Bodvar wrote:
>Diana wrote:
>
>> Do native Americans talk too loud and about themselves all the
>> time? Is this plain-spoken? I've never spoken to any that I'm >
>aware of, though I have observed a few in Vancouver and they
>> actually seemed sort of shy and reticent
>
>Er..I believe P says that the Indians are the masters of restraint in
>talk and economy in action (when adding a log to the teepee fire. In
>LILA page 46 he writes "....he (the Indian) wants you to either
>speak from the heart or keep quiet....".
>
>If anyone speaks loudly about themselves it must be the regular
>Americans [grin]. Interesting about your Vancouver observation. My
>wife and I went to Vancouver Island in 1993 and I saw some
>inhabitants of a reservation there and I had exactly the same
>impression of shyness and reticence. However, I don't think that is
>some indigenous trait, but rather something that comes from their
>uneasiness re the white culture. Among themselves - and at the
>time when they dominated the land - they were probably as
>outgoing as anyone else.
You're probably right. But perhaps some of our cousins
over the pond have had more direct contact with native
Americans and can shed more light on the matter.
Or do we have any native American subscribers???
Marco,
Thanks for your summaries of the chapters and the issues.
No need to repeat them but I think you captured it all well.
>'Peyote' and 'Indians' come later.
>
>I don't read in these pages an invite to search for quality
>with the help of some drug; I rather read an invite to search
>for quality into the people. I read that every guy, even if
>apparently insignificant, can give us a message. And we
>must be able to read it, deeply, with curiosity. And give
>ourself to the experiences will come.
Yet, it can't be ignored that a drug was used (although
it was also explained that drugs are not the only
method of achieving a vision quest.)
If a chemical is used then does it mean that this is
a physical condition?
Must be.
Marco again:
>Dusenberry is the dynamic encounter. Dusenberry
>is too dynamic and mystic and needs a rational mind
>to translate that dynamic message in something a little
>more static. In this sense, I see Phaedrus as an artist:
>he interpreted the message and translated it through
>his methods and techniques. The result is this Novel,
>Lila, comprehensible by every world's reader.
Another very good point. Dusenberry isn't just
a combination of social and intellectual Dusenberry
is close to dynamic. Maybe that's the real difference
between him and Rigel, even though they were both
strongly social.
David B wrote:
>DO A LITTLE DANCE
>MAKE A LITTLE LOVE
>GET DOWN TONIGHT
>GET DOWN TONIGHT
Okay, okay, sit down and we'll talk about nookie.
>I thought the most curious and interestig thing about his sexual attraction
>to Lila was the intentional ambiguity. He says "my God, it was HER, the one
>on the streetcar". But then we learn that she's never been to the midwest,
>so it couldn't really have been her. We get this impression that the bar
>lady is a particular and temporal version of a broader and timeless reality,
>as if sexiness were something in it own right and we only participate in it
>for a time. He keeps thinking he's seen her before even though he now knows
>that's not really possible and the she asks him "Where have I seen you
>before?"
Right. In terms of the story, I don't think we are supposed
to believe that they have actually met before. I like the idea
of a broader timeless reality of sexiness. The biological levels
communicate without bothering to inform the intellectual level
about it and it's pretty horrifying to admit that.
The Lilas he's seen in the past are different women but it's
the same ancient sexuality that he's feeling. How many intellectuals
would even admit to that? Good on Pirsig for having the guts to
bring it out into the open!
And earlier David B wrote:
> Please take special notice of the description a vision quest or
>peyote experience. You know, that italicized paragraph from an un-named
>source....its on page 35 in my hardback copy, not too far into chapter
>three.
I have re-read it. But all this talk about peyote seems a bit
academic. I mean have you got any? Are you going to arrange
a pow wow for us?
Diana
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:19 BST