The summarizer strikes again! Thanks Roger. I appreciate your
efforts and like the way you've shown how each concept is connected to the
text. You've saved me some work, but I still have some things to say...
First I'll throw in my two cents in response to Roger's Key
Concepts...
>
> KEY CONCEPTS:
>
> 1) Pirsig clarifies the limitations of objectivity. "There's this
> pseudo-science myth that when you are 'objective' you just dissapear from
> the
> face of the earth and see everything undistorted, as it really is, like
> God
> from heaven. But that's rubbish."
>
[David Buchanan] This one gives me the most trouble. I don't think
its wrong so much as premature. I think we'll need to use "objective" as a
category later in the book when we get to SOM and Positivism and all that.
Pirsig clearly brings it up in his descriptions of Dusenberry, but I don't
think its a major theme in the first three chapters.
It seems to me that the issues around Dusenberry ARE part of a major
theme, but I wouldn't describe it as "the limitations of objectivity". I
noticed that chapter two is about nothing but the slips and then chapter
three opens describing Dusenberry as a member of the JUNK and TOUGH
categories. (The other English Professors saw him that way, but Pirsig talks
about the importance of the slips in those categories.) I think this is a
foreshadowing of the "platypus" discussion and the "outsider" discussion.
Also Dusenberry's academic style clearly prefigures what Pirsig will later
say about the limitations of "objectivity" in anthropology. But we're just
not there yet. To make a long story short, I think #1 is correct, but way
too early.
> 2) He highlights that his mystical peyote experience was an important
> grain
> of sand around which the pearl of the MOQ was formed. It helped him to
> overcome his objectivity. He even considered structuring the entire book
> around the "complex realities and trancendental questions that first
> emerged
> in his mind there."
>
[David Buchanan] You know I like this one. Nuff said.
> 3) His initial peyote illumination was that Indians are "the originators"
> of
> much of American values, especially the value of Freedom.
>
[David Buchanan] Right on. I think we could expand this key concept
with a great deal of confidence because Pirsig closes chapter three telling
us explicity that his study would be about "freedom and order". Its about
Indians, but its not JUST about Indians. I won't make a case here, but
doesn't the idea of freedom and order ultimately get developed into Pirsig's
ideas about the Dynamic/static split? Isn't it safe to say Indian freedom
and European order are not JUST a split in the American personality, but are
part of an even broader theme. I would import this later material into a KEY
CONCEPT, but for these reasons I'd simply rephrase #3 to say that "Freedom
and Order" can be demonstrated in the contrasting cultural styles of Indians
and Europeans.
(I think there is a corresponding contrast between the mystical and
scientific styles too. Can you see how Indian mysticism, Dynamism,
authenticity and freedom are part of the same package? See how order,
scientific objectivity, imitation and authoritarian values are all part of
the same package? Pirsig doesn't spell it out exactly, but all of these
notions are hinted at and touched upon in the first three chapters.)
> 4) He provides insights on how the MOQ was compiled using random slips. A
> central theme here again is freedom. He speaks of using the slips to free
>
> and empty his mind to make room for the new. He also stresses the quality,
>
> freshness and growth potential that can be leveraged via the freedom of
> random access. He allowed the slips almost to organize and categorize
> themselves by asking only one simple question, "which came first?."
>
[David Buchanan] Yup. Chapter two has really grown on me. I mean,
there is alot more to it. I think those ten pages are description of the
very structure of Lila. He's giving us all kinds of clues as to what's
coming. And since we already know what's coming, we should be able to really
nail down what he's doing there. I think it deserves much more discussion
than we've given it this month. I think there is a tendency to underestimate
Pirsig's ability as a creative writer and to take things too literally. Lila
is a novel. To interpet it literally is to misinterpet it. Pirsig is always
talking about several things at once. Its like Ten Bear's weather report,
get it? MOBY DICK ain't about whales!
> PS -- 99.5 % of what has been written in this forum this month has been
> completely off topic. Members want to continue to bring in all their new
> theories and angles and interesting tidbits. These are good reading and
> all,
> but they belong on the MD. Are we unable to actually read a segment of a
> book and just comment on it? Sorry to preach, especially to those few that
>
> did focus.
>
[David Buchanan] Right on. Thanks once again, Roger. And I have to
ask, WHERE WERE THE MODERATORS this month? I begged everyone to stick to the
text, to Stick to the Text, to STICK TO THE TEXT almost every time I posted.
I repeated this one simple rule 8 or 9 times. We don't need a bunch of rules
for this kind of project to work. But we have to be very strict about the
basics. Stick to the text. Ground your interpetations in the words of the
author and focus your comments only on the author's meaning. If you have
knowledge or experience that will help us understand the author it is
perfectly legitimate to import that outside stuff, but only insofar as it
clarifies Pirsig's thoughts. It terms of rules, this method is child's play.
But to be a positive force in this process requires excellence in the basics
of philosophical discussion. I mean, you've really got to know what's
"relevant" and to the text. You've got to be able to connect one idea to the
next AND be able to show us that connection.
(Folks were posting on big bang cosmology this month! Many of the
posts should have been bounced for their irrelevance this month and this is
when we neen to be MORE insistant about relevance because its about the ONLY
rule. And I don't mean to suggest that the tangential stuff isn't
interesting or worthy of discussion, but it does destroy the required focus.
In fact, my favorite stuff was Diana's description of European Pagans and
Cory's stuff about the reservation. BUT IT WEASN"T RELEVANT to Pirsig's
point and I think they only when there because of comments that were also
not anchored in the text. Even I had to cheat and quote from deep into the
book to answer the same issues they addressed. It can spiral out of control
so easily. Stick to the text. Anchor your interpetations in the text. In
fact if we want to make rules, how about this; Your post has to have at
least one quote for every three paragraphs and the quote has to be from the
section we're covering.)
The goal? Well, the goal is an expanded or deepened comprehension of
the MOQ. That's why we're all here, right? Goes without saying, doesn't it?
And while I'm complaining, why is everybody calling it a "slow
reading" program? Its just a little thing, but its weird to ignore the
shorter and easier "re-reading" program, especially when that was what we
elected and what the suggestor (me) called it, in favor of the longer "slow
reading" label just because one person said the suggested method SOUNDED
LIKE a slow reading program. Its just so ironic because the idea behind the
re-reading project is to really listen to the author and pay attention to
what he's saying. It appears this author's label and description was ignored
in favor of someone's idea about that description. Its hilarious, yet
depressing. Hell, it might be exactly like a "slow reading" program. I don't
know. Like I said in my very first post, I'd never heard of it before and
suggest you just read at what ever speed produces the best comprehension. It
doesn't really matter what anybody calls it, but it shows how even the
little things can easily get mixed up. Words are all we have here, my
friends, and so we have to be extra careful with them.
> MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:20 BST