Thanks for the quick and concise comments on my summary. After today, I
(Roger) will be away for a bit , but I will include the below changes and any
other recommendations into a revised summary when I get back.
>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:
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.
ROGER:
I propose we modify #1 to "Pirsig introduces us to some of the limitations of
objectivity." I agree with your concerns on needing to use the category
later, and I believe this rewording will enable this to occur. Okay?
I do think we should include it as a key concept though, because I think it
is the core 'learning' that Phaedrus took from Dusenberry. P described it as
D's major eccentricity, or distinguishing characteristic. The beginning of
Ch 3 illustrates how P wed his analytical skills to D's non-objective
methodology. It was their rejection of objectivity which led them to be
participants rather than observers in the peyote ceremomy, and it was the
non-objectivity of the experience that led to P 'going the distance'. In
fact, if not for the importance of introducing the concept of
non-objectivity, I wonder if P would have started the book with this slip
(Dusenberry) at all.
Two other things lead me to stress non-objectivity as a theme. First, as you
later mention, objectivity was one of the fundamental differences in values
between Indians and Europeans. Second, I think the slip system's
randomness, its organic self-organizing "bottom-up" methodology, its
inseparability between the emptying of P's mind and the formation of the
metaphysics is a beautiful description of a very non-objective process. As
you wrote, there are multiple dimensions to chapter 2, and I think it is
critical we connect the non-objectiveness of the PROGRAM with the
non-objectiveness of the primary slip in the metaphysics. "The first topic,
at the very front of the tray, was Dusenberry."
You know what? After writing this, I wonder if we need to stress objectivity
more rather than less..... ????
>3) His initial peyote illumination was that Indians are "the originators"
>of much of American values, especially the value of Freedom.
DAVID:
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.
ROGER:
Yes. I will add the ending quote of our reading to #3 as you recommend.
DAVID:
(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.)
ROGER:
Strongly agree. These themes are closely woven together. Dynamism comes up
again and again in the first three chapters under the headings of creative,
growing, fresh, new, changing, etc.
>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:
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
ROGER:
I just reread it again and you are exactly right. Ch 2 is on one dimension
the PROGRAM chapter just as ch 3 is the first few slips. Allegations that
the initial reading is lacking in critical substance are very misguided.
Failure to catch it (and in our case to record it), is sure to cause future
misunderstanding.
>"the slip-sorting [method] refers not to time, but to metaphysical or
>logical primacy"...
RICK:
I think this should be added to the end of # 4. Other than that, I like
what you've done.
ROGER:
Does anyone disagree? Marco?
RICK:
As for questioning Pirsig's identification of Indians as the originators
American values... I have a book (somewhere, I'm looking for it--) that
proposes this identification has been made before and is erroneous. ....
there is no evidence for this at all. I believe
his argument claims that these "historical links" are politically correct,
relatively recent and revisonist.
MARCO:
After 1492 Indian culture was corrupted by European culture and vice versa.
The strange blending of Europeans, Indians, free space, opportunities
preconditioned the crystal seed of modern idea of freedom. This is my pet
theory.
ROGER:
Although I have recorded that a key concept of Ch 3 is that Indians are the
originators of the value of freedom within western society, I believe Pirsig
is wrong or at least oversimplifying here. I agree with Marco. Pirsig gives
a flip comment that frontier values don't come from trees and rocks .....
"They've got trees, rocks and rivers in Europe." What he fails to express is
that they also have pre-existing, static, well-latched social values there
too.
A central tenet of evolution is that a new environment will lead to an
explosion of new possibilities as life adapts to the new open nitches. The
same concept can be applied here to the evolution of social values. The past
400 years have been a time when established old European values have branched
out westward across America into new environments. Diverse people have
continuously formed new social arrangements partially separated from those to
the East. And those very people making up the new Westward society were
self-selected as valueing freedom.
I think the MOQ explains the frontier values without this shaky premise that
the Indians are the originators. I would say that the values of America
evolved from the strong but diverse foundations of Europe, along with an
influx of "Enlightenment" philosophy (which was blossoming at the time),
exposure to indiginous societies, free space and new opportunity.
Pirsig is fixated on roots and origins, and I think this leads him to some
very weak interpretations. The Indian value thing, the reinvention of the
Sophists, the importance of sanskrit word origins, etc. In a complex world,
sometimes there is no single linear explanation.
Be Good,
Rog
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:20 BST