Dear Roger,
> ROGER HOPES TO REFOCUS THE GROUP AND
> END THE MONTH WITH A CONSENSUS OF
> AGREEMENTS (OR AT LEAST A CLEAR RECORD
> OF DISAGREEMENTS)
>
the main problem is that the rules for a slow reading list must be different
from a monthly discussion list. And we are philosophers (or would like to
be), but not reviewers, so we clearly give more importance to the
philosophical aspect of the novel and forget the poetical one. And it's
very difficult to get a full agreement on a philosophy. Perhaps we need an
active moderator with the purpose to search for a wide agreement, but
there's also the risk the moderator will arrive alone at the end of the
novel :-).
Roger:
> KEY CONCEPTS:
> 1) Pirsig clarifies the limitations of objectivity
> 2) He highlights the mystical origin of the insights that eventually lead
to
> the MOQ -- in this case the more perfect intellectual web of the MOQ
clearly
> grew out of mystic insights germinated in the Peyote ceremony.
> 3) He profiles the impact of American Indians on Western values with
emphasis
> on their value of Freedom.
> With the above three issues as a starting point, could the group please
let
> me know if there is a consensus on these themes?
I agree on point #1 and 3# . On point #2 I'm not so sure. Bo's last post
give us another point of view:
Bo:
> As said earlier, I think the said episode was part of the general
> quality enlightenment of the young Phaedrus. The first impulse was
> the realization of how a limitless number of hypotheses may cover
> any observation, then the Benares and the Korean (military)
> experience. The "plant watering" incident at the school in Bozeman
> (only then did he meet Dusenberry) and finally the collapse in
> Chicago when Quality finally revealed itself to him.
[...]
> Pirsig did not "translate", but rather make a complete western
> counterpart where the mystical quality is taken care of by the
> dynamic half, but where the static half presents something that can
> be undestood by the western mind. He has done the impossible
> east-west harmonization that Kipling declared impossible. To go on
> speaking about mysticism in the old (SOM) fashion does not
> sound right to me. Remember that the said none-westerners never
> regarded their world view as "mysticism".
I also pointed out some conclusion in my last post, Sat 18 March:
Marco:
> I briefly summarize my opinion:
>
> 1) We need a solid static intellectual base (chapter 2) to face DQ without
> risks.
> 2) We must search for DQ in everyday life among everyday people
> (Dusenberry).
> 3) "To experience the Dynamic, the static intellectual patterns must be
hung
> up" (Erik Wennberg, 10 march) and create an empty space in our
> minds.
> 4) Peyote is a drug with a great function when used in that kind
> of ceremonies. The WHOLE ceremony preconditioned the "crystal seed" of
MOQ,
> but
> Phaedrus' mind was already "saturated" by his cultural attitude (attention
> to people and no prejudices on different cultures) and by hundreds of
myths
> (cowboys movies, Eastern philosophy, American sense of freedom ... ) so
that
> seed has been possible.
> 5) The novel is the intellectual result of the application of a static
> method to that dynamic mystic experience. Dynamic experiences need Static
> patterns. Mysticism needs Intellectual patterns.
>
My point #4 refers to a more general "saturation" in Pirsig/Phaedrus' mind
so that "crystal seed" has been possible. This seems to be not so far from
Bo's point of view: we both give a great importance the whole corpus of P.
former experiences. I wrote that the famous ceremony "preconditioned" (not
caused, you know what I mean), the crystal seed. That's like to say it has
been a necessary but not sufficient condition for MOQ creation. So I agree
with Bo who is trying to put that very important experience in a wider
evolving process.
Roger:
> What other KEY concepts need
> to be added from the first three chapters? (Note I have not included
random
> access or time as key themes -- if someone sees these as integral, they
need
> to champion them)
>
As I tried to introduce "Time" I explain myself. There's again a problem
about the topic. If we want just discuss the novel as written by Pirsig we
are falling in the philosophology trap I already feared at the beginning of
this month. I agree with Denis who said we must try to expand the MOQ. I
perfectly know that Pirsig doesn't mention time as basic concept. But I
would like to make some step outside the rut drew out by Pirsig just to
explore some of my doubts.
The question "Which comes first?" is the beginning of his method. That
"first" refers to a ORDER of importance, value, time, alphabet, weight of
what else? We have two words in Italian to translate that "first": PRIMO, an
adjective used for example when you count: First, Second, Third..... and
PRIMA , an adverb used also to translate "Before", that is first in time
confronting two events. My Italian translation of Lila reports this second
case, so I guess that "which comes first?" (in Italian: Chi viene prima?)
refers to a temporal sequence. This will be very clear in next chapters when
MOQ will be developed as a metaphysics based on the stratification of
evolving (through time) pattern of values.
For the moment I stop here, this is not the right time to discuss of time.
It's enough for me that you agree that Pirsig's metaphysics begins with this
question; and that "First" refers to a temporal sequence. And that we must
try to expand MOQ.
Marco.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:20 BST