[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[Andre Broersen]

Mary to Andre:

I'm trying hard to understand your objection here, and I can't speak for
Bodvar, only for myself.  For me, the catalyst for Pirsig was his
recognition that the world is not fundamentally divided into subjects and
objects but is Dynamic and Static Quality.  I wonder why that was such a
great achievement?  Why was it so hard for him to see it?

Andre:
Hi Mary, first of all I get the impression that Bodvar has persuaded you into thinking that Mr. Pirsig's greatest achievement was the 'exposure' of SOM. This is plain bull. (It is so for Bodvar and ever since, he has created a grandiose story out of ZMM and the MOQ that it is beyond recognition). As dmb has pointed out on numerous occassions philosophers before him had arrived at the same conclusion. I'll mention James again and Northrop. (I am more familiar with these two than with Dewey).

My objection Mary is that you appear to have been persuaded by Bodvar that the entire intellectual level(of the MOQ) IS SOM. That it has been since 'the beginning' and shall ever be with us 'until the end of time'. This is denied by Mr. Pirsig in a variety of ways (both reading ZMM and LILA correctly and directly in LC).

Why was it so hard to see? I think Phaedrus gives the answer in ZMM: we have been hypnotized in believing that there is nothing else but subjects and objects...since we were knee-high.

Mary:
Could it be because everyone else viewed the world in terms of subjects and objects and considered anyone who didn't crazy?

Andre:
Are you saying this because you want to justify Bodvar's interpretation or because you yourself cannot think of your experience in other than S/O terms? These are two different issues.
I think that not 'everyone' viewed the world in this way. ZMM is about some people who did not and also about some people (representing millions) who could not put their finger on it e.g Sylvia and John. This is the way I interpret Phaedrus' answer to DeWeese with the anecdote of the faulty light switch (in ZMM. Phaedrus always uses a reference to light in a special way (an 'aha' moment or denoting a 'mystic' or 'saint')How did Phaedrus know the problem was in the switch and not the wire? He answers that you have to have some 'familiarity'.(he realised his 'squareness' inside out).

And yes, many people who saw things differently were indeed locked up, burnt at the stake, or 'avoided or, at least 'labelled'.