[MD] On Indian Values (Part I?)

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

Hi Scott,

I believe Pirsig's (and William Sidis') argument was not that the actual phrase
"all men are created equal" came from the Indians, but the value of this
belief. Europeans formalized it, but the premise came from the Indian.

As for warfare, I don't think so. He talked about "Primitive tribes such as the
American Indians have no record of sweetness and cooperation with other tribes.
They ambushed them, tortured them, dashed their children's brains out on rocks.
If man is basically good, then maybe it is man's basic goodness which invented
social institutions to repress this kind of biological savagery in the first
place."

But this "biological savagery" was a characteristic of MAN, not some exclusive
value held by the Indian. To say that Indians valued "dashing their children's
brains out on rocks" is like saying Europeans valued "murder". (Also remember
that he points out "kindness to children" as an Indian value). And "warfare" is
also not exclusive to the Indian. In fact, I'm not sure how you can make an
argument that the Indian valued warfare, but the European did NOT?

Look, this is not a blind "sugar candy and lollipops" recount of the Indian, but
rather a look at the value conflict that occured, and was examined, when
Victorian patterns encountered Indian patterns. The American psyche today is,
according to Pirsig, a hybrid of these patters, and that hybridity is a source
of conflict.

Exactly what values are in conflict, and why, is what Pirsig was getting at, and
what I think underscores the main thrust of contention among those seeking a
return to the Victorian Glory Days of 1890. Indeed, I could go line-by-line
through Lila (as I started to do) and make the case that with little change the
Victorian-Indian conflict parallels nearly verbatim the Conservative-Liberal
conflict "as the Party Jesters present it". (Note this last emphasis. This is
why I find their dichotomy illusionary and distortive. But you'll hear more on
this later.)

Ultimately, my point is this. And this mirrors my final point about Orwell's
politics. The Great Lie here is that we have two options, "social superiority"
which leads to wonderous freedom, and "social equality" which leads to abject
tyranny. Orwell's complexity in thought shows that one can be a lifelong
"leftist", a supporter of Labour, a sympathizer with Trotskyists (who were
Marxists in a genuine sense), and yet also an anarchist who supports
"individual freedom" and a staunch opponent of Stalinism (Soviet Communism).
Orwell, I'd argue, represents one possible "synthesis" of these "values",
rather than falling prey to the dichotomous "choice" trumpeted by the Jesters
(more on this later). Of the Indian values, as Pirsig says, "that this process
of diffusion and assimilation of Indian values is not over. It's still with us,
and accounts for much of the restlessness and dissatisfaction found in America
today. Within each American these conflicting sets of values still clash."

He contiues, "But the clash between European and Indian values still exists, and
Phaedrus felt he himself was one of those in whom the battle was taking place.
That was why he had the feeling of "coming home" at that peyote meeting. The
division he'd felt within himself and thought was something wrong with himself
was not within himself at all. What he was seeing was a source of "himself"
that had never been formally acknowledged. It was a division within the entire
American culture that he had projected upon himself. It was in many others
too."

My contention is that the Party Jesters represent this conflict as a Absolute
Choice between "Good" (the Victorian) and "Evil" (the Indian). This is why
despite 98% of the great bulk of Lila that talks about the Indian is wholly
ignored in favor of endless repition of "dashed brains on rocks". I'm
suggesting that the resolution to this conflict is not "choice", but
"synthesis". And I think that is what Pirsig argued for to.

Arlo