Hi Roger, David B., Marco, Diana and all,
First, let me say that I admire Roger's attempts to produce a consensus,
but I don't see that we are moving towards one. There are many different
ways of interpreting things, and we all seem to read in things that
other people don't necessarily see. Let me go through your 4 key
concepts to make the point.
ROGER
> KEY CONCEPTS:
>
> 1) Pirsig clarifies the limitations of objectivity....
To my way of thinking, this is the point underscored by the peyote
experience. Phaedrus learned more about the Indians by abandoning
objectivity, a process he explains clearly in Chapter 3.
> 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."
I don't think that this assertion well supported by the text of Lila.
Pirsig does indeed say that he CONSIDERED structuring the book around
the thousands of paper slips relating to the peyote experience, but in
the end he excluded most of them. The book changed from being one about
Indian culture to being a book about metaphysics. Thus, the whole Indian
theme was demoted to an illustrative example.
ROGER specifically asked:
>
> Jonathan lost me in his "I don't think the mysticism vs. non-mysticism
or
> ceremony vs. non-ceremony are issues any more." Do you agree with my
summary
> of the key concepts, especially # 2, or would you change them?
This assertion of "mysticism" is foreign to Lila. Phaedrus says clearly
that there was no sense of ceremony with the Indians - they just did
whatever they were doing in a straightforward (read as "unmystical"?)
way. Finally, when Phaedrus notes the aptness of Hoebel's description
of a Cheyenne warrior as a description of the American cowboy, he says
that "With the single exception of the Indian 'mysticism' the
characterization is perfect".
Thus, I see no justification for Roger's attaching such supreme
importance to the "mystical peyote experience".
(Sorry David B.)
> 3) His initial peyote illumination was that Indians are "the
originators" of
> much of American values, especially the value of Freedom.
Yes, that's about all Pirsig does say on this. Whether he is right or
wrong doesn't really affect the essence of his metaphysics.
Actually, MARCO raises an important aspect of the American Freedom
theme. As a non-American with an American wife and many American
friends, my perception is that Americans have a hugely inflated view of
their own brand of freedom, so much so that they fail to understand the
cynicism and contempt this raises among non-Americans. (Why else is the
burning Star-Spangled Banner such a ubiquitous sight around the world?).
Pirsig essentially goes along with this equation of America with
freedom; even the Korean war, Benares and ECT didn't erase that part of
his upbringing.
>
> 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?."
>
I agree here (as obvious from my other posts)
ROGER
>
> Finally, I agree with Diana that we should critically evaluate whether
we
> concur with Pirsig's allegation about American values being derived
from
> Indians. I think this is on topic, and quite arguable.
>
Agreed, but as I said above, this doesn't affect the essence of the
metaphysics.
Pirsig uses the Indian/American values as an example to illustrate the
MoQ,
so I see no harm in accepting the example as valid for the sake of
argument.
> 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. ...
Actually for once, I think that the MF group started to achieve the aim
of filling in that 99% of the MoQ that Pirsig left unexplored. If that
99% doesn't come via members' "new theories and angles and interesting
tidbits", I don't see it coming from anywhere else. Furthermore, I agree
with Diana's comments on moderating - we first have to let the posts
suggest the structure before we uphold the structure with strict
moderation (which was exactly the point of Phaedrus' paper slips).
I am going to suggest that we work our way on to Chapters 4, 5 and 6
etc.
Jonathan
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:20 BST