[MD] Essentials for target practice

[Ham Priday]

Dear Marsha --


> Ham
>
> I want you to always have a home on the MD.  Your
> contributions are very important to me.  I wish I could
> easily translate your 12-point manifesto into MoQ language.

Thanks for the encouraging sentiment.  It's very sweet of you, Marsha. 
Although I appreciate the thought, I didn't expect my fundamentals to be 
translatable into MoQ language.  Since they represent an alternative view, I 
wanted them to be considered on their own merit, and was curious to learn 
who would accept them on that basis.

But the longer I dwell in Qualityland, the more I realize that 
philosophers -- especially those who are revered as cultural icons -- are 
prone to having their work 'dogmatized' by their acolytes.  I've suggested 
before (and I don't mean it to be disparaging) that the MoQ evolved as a 
cultist movement appealing mostly to elitists and liberal arts majors 
seeking a New Age replacement for religion and scientific objectivism.  I 
think Pirsig envisioned himself as a latter-day Pied Piper who would lead 
the Flower Children out of authoritarian enslavement into a romantic era of 
aesthetic appreciation.

The novels alone seduce the reader with analogies and metaphors that preach 
collectivism with Quality as its credo.  The philosophy fits right into the 
the egalitarian and "greening" movements of recent decades, while slighting 
individualism and free-market capitalism as either "egoistic" or outworn, 
greed-based ideologies dominated by the "social level".  Now there's nothing 
wrong in having a liberal persuasion; indeed, it's the prevailing view of 
authors and journalists in our time.  It becomes problematic, however, when 
a philosopher weaves his thesis so as to promote his brand of "social 
reform".  Is the resulting product then a philosophy or a social polemic? 
And, if it's the latter, why does he call it a "metaphysics"?

The Lila passage you've recently quoted is an example of what I'm talking 
about:

"While sustaining biological and social patterns
Kill all intellectual patterns.
Kill them completely
And then follow Dynamic Quality
And morality will be served."

This startling declaration comes at the end of Phaedrus's journey when he 
loses Lila to Rigel, and it paraphrases a Buddhist poem that likens nirvana 
to being "completely dead."  He blames his lover's obstinate behavior on 
"the static patterns that were really going to kill her if she didn't let 
go."  But if biological and social patterns represented Lila's depressed 
life style, why kill the very patterns that might save her?  Without 
intellect, Phaedrus himself would never have arrived at the philosophy he's 
espousing.  It's a dramatic flourish that sounds profound in a romance 
novel, but it undermines the highest quality "static patterns" in Pirsig's 
hierarchy.

Yet, passages like the above are doggedly sought out and requoted as gems of 
wisdom for the practicing MoQist -- if only they can comprehend the meaning 
of it.  That's why novels and poetry are not well suited to articulating 
philosophy.  It's also why, after five years, the game of "Pirsig says" has 
lost its appeal to me.

Kindest regards,
Ham