[MD] Bo's right! For all the wrong reasons? (Part2)

[Mary]

Hi Marsha & Dave Thomas by reference,

  If one makes a judgement about him from the position of the
> small self,
> it will be nothing but the reflection of the small self's limited
> perspective.  

I agree that none of us are Jesus Christ.  To expect perfection of anyone is
to objectify them.  I also agree with Dave Thomas though, too, in his recent
series of posts.  There's something rotten in Denmark.  Dave pointed to a
number of things, none of which are fatal in and of themselves, and my
concern is probably not either, but the accumulated weight of
inconsistencies in Lila is telling and I, for one, think this is an area
worthy of exploration.  

ZMM speaks with a voice of honesty and authenticity.  We will never know if
this is justified, but even if it was made entirely of whole cloth (which I
don't believe it was) the ideas expressed ring true as those of a tormented
individual desperately trying to make sense of the human condition.  He
bravely confronts his beasts and I admire his willingness to step up to the
plate and examine his value as a father to Chris.  This is important to the
authenticity of the book since it is, after all, about a motorcycle trip
with his son.  In contrast, Lila chronicles a boat trip with a woman, but he
never once reveals the true nature of why he is there.  The premise is false
and thus calls into question the basis for certain of the insights he
proposes.  

Now you could argue that this is irrelevant, but given that the title itself
is "Lila an Inquiry into _Morals_", I would say that at the very least, he
missed a golden opportunity there.

Best,
Mary








> On Aug 3, 2010, at 9:15 PM, Mary wrote:
> 
> > I've been uneasy for many years with "Lila" the book.  If you check
> back in
> > the archives you will find where I objected to the sexism in it many
> years
> > ago without even being aware of the truth of it.  It wasn't until
> recently I
> > learned that Pirsig was so completely dishonest about it.  What an
> ugly
> > secret!  Had I known he was a married man having an affair with Lila
> on his
> > journey down the Hudson, that would have put the whole thing in an
> entirely
> > different light for me right from the start.  Now I'm not such a
> prude that
> > I can't get past that to see the value in his writings, but when I
> did learn
> > this I must say I was disappointed to see it in a man self-proclaimed
> to be
> > in search of beauty, truth, and Quality.  I am a grown up woman and
> > understand entirely the weakness of men (having observed this at
> first hand
> > numerous times - they are but children in the grips of testosterone
> after
> > all, and cannot really help it, but wouldn't it have been much more
> > revelatory for him to be honest about what he was doing?  I mean, if
> you are
> > writing a book fraught with psychology and heavy with metaphysical
> meaning,
> > wouldn't you think honesty would be a prime directive?  When I first
> learned
> > about his philandering, I was so disappointed I almost chucked the
> whole
> > thing.  Then I realized that he already had chucked the whole thing
> in Lila
> > on his own.  By this I mean where he disavows his original insights
> into the
> > intellect of Man and in Lila waters the whole thing down to a thesis
> > proposition worthy of a Masters degree.  But the original ideas in
> ZMM were
> > worthy.  The Intellectual Level as SOM makes perfect sense for me and
> makes
> > even the most egregious BS in Lila palatable - especially now that I
> > understand he was merely justifying his own lack of integrity with
> that
> > book.  What a shame really.
> >
> > Mary
> >
> > - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization.
> >
> >> bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of David Thomas
> >> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 5:33 PM
> >> Hi Krimel,
> >>>
> >>> [Krimel]
> >>> Excellent set of posts here, Dave. I have been beating away at most
> >> of this
> >>> for a long time but you have summarized it all very nicely.
> >> Thank you.
> >>> I also agree strongly with what you said about the relationship of
> >> ZMM to
> >>> Lila. ZMM is almost universally regarded as the better book.
> >> After nearly 15 years and countless hours of head banging I finally
> >> came to
> >> the conclusion that the MoQ just has too many problems. Since I just
> >> recently came to this conclusion, from a philosophical point of view
> >> I'm not
> >> sure how much is salvageable from either book.
> >>> I see it in almost every
> >>> bookstore I wander into and while Lila is there sometimes it is
> >> nowhere near
> >>> as ubiquitous.
> >> I always make it a point to check out where they are shelved in my
> >> local
> >> Barnes and Noble. They're always restocking and moving things a
> little
> >> based
> >> on shelf space. Both are always in or around "Oriental Religion" but
> >> you
> >> will sometimes find them the next shelf over in "New Age-Occult."
> Last
> >> time
> >> it was four copies of ZaMM in "Oriental Religion" and one forlorn
> copy
> >> of
> >> Lila at the bottom of the "Christianity" section. What a hoot!
> >>> I would almost recommend the opposite of what Paul Turner
> >>> suggested. He claimed that since Lila was later than ZMM, whenever
> >> there was
> >>> a conflict Lila should be regarded as taking precedence. I think
> Lila
> >> is
> >>> full of errors from the making of up of James quotes but the
> failure
> >> to
> >>> understand the basics of evolution.
> >>>
> >>> Here is an example of that which I haven't heard mentioned before.
> >> Take
> >>> Pirsig the social critic. He spends a lot of Lila talking about
> >> Victorians
> >>> and hippie and the radical social transformations of the '60s with
> >> very
> >>> little mention of civil rights and feminism. These were far more
> >> profound
> >>> and radical changes in the American way of doing things than the
> >> peace and
> >>> love anti-war movement of the hippies. It is hard to take serious
> any
> >>> analysis of trends in American culture of the 1960's that ignores
> >> civil
> >>> rights and feminism especially in a treatise on morality.
> >> Right. What about the Weatherman,SDS etc ? I recently heard
> somewhere
> >> that
> >> there were more acts of terroristic bombing and arson during that
> >> period
> >> than any other in American history. Pirsig, no comment.
> >>> I particularly agree that to the extent that Pirsig is trying to
> lay
> >> an
> >>> intellectual foundation for morality, he fails utterly. He doesn't
> >> even
> >>> address Mill and doesn't talk at all about Kant's ideas about
> >> morality other
> >>> than to call them ugly. He doesn't mention at all any contemporary
> >> thinkers
> >>> in morality. How are we to take this seriously?
> >> Right, just this morning before read your post I Googled "moral
> >> metaphysics"
> >> in addition to Kant and many, many others I found this:
> >> http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/eps/PES-Yearbook/95_docs/cunningham.html
> >> Any reference to Dewey's "Natural Metaphysics" or the whole class of
> >> similar
> >> work by others in Lila?
> >>
> >> Or this which I recently caught in a reread of "The Matrix and
> >> Philosophy"
> >>
> >> "...dialectics is a theory of evolution or progress. It is based on
> >> the...idea that the engine that drives motion and change...is the
> >> struggle
> >> of opposing forces. Someone who thinks dialectically thinks the of
> the
> >> world
> >> as a constantly evolving place, a place that life is never still.
> >> Moreover,
> >> a dialectician (which Pirsig forthrightly claims to be) thinks of
> the
> >> world
> >> as space in which oppositions between everything from individual
> >> molecules
> >> of matter to complex ideas are striving to reach new levels of
> >> consciousness
> >> and organization."
> >>
> >> Cross out "consciousness" and is this not a pretty good synopsis of
> the
> >> system MoQ proposes?  Now the other shoe. The lead in to this
> paragraph
> >> before the first dots say:
> >>
> >> "The theoretical foundations of Marx's thought are derived, in part,
> >> from a
> >> novel reading of German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel's "dialectical"
> >> philosophies. In Marxist thought,..."
> >>
> >> Why no reference to Marx, and only these two for Hegel, in Lila?
> >>
> >>> A review of his book in the Harvard Educational Review had said
> that
> >> his idea
> >>> of truth was the same as James. The London Times said he was a
> >> follower of
> >>> Aristotle. Psychology Today said he was a follower of Hegel. If
> >> everyone was
> >>> right he had certainly achieved a remarkable synthesis. But the
> >> comparison
> >>> with James interested him most because it looked like there might
> be
> >> something
> >>> to it. (Lila 152)
> >>
> >>> He didn't like Hegel or any of the German idealists who dominated
> >> philosophy
> >>> in his youth precisely because they were so general and sweeping in
> >> their
> >>> approach.(Lila 152)
> >>
> >> The world wide consequence of Marxist definitively answers that
> >> question.
> >>
> >> The Matrix maybe an apt metaphor for Lila.
> >>
> >> Dave
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> >>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >>> Archives:
> >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> >>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >> Archives:
> >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> >
> > Moq_Discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html