[MD] Why are things called patterns?

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 12:46 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi dmb,
> It is hard to tell if your post is meant to be constructive or
> destructive.  I certainly hope it is the former.

Mark, you are hopeless... dmb spent a good deal of time explaining the
quote Marsha offered and now you have the audacity to claim he's being
destructive? Please.

>
> In Lila, Pirsig compares the insanity of Phaedrus to the insanity of
> Lila.  It is important to keep this in mind.  Such insanity comes from
> only following DQ.  With this in mind, we can consider both Phaedrus
> and Lila to be heroes.  I believe this is the manner in which it was
> intended.  Why else would Pirsig bring her into the picture?  Is she
> supposed to be a villain?  The opposite of hero is villain.  If she is
> supposed to be a foil to the intellectual, then we have the
> introduction of the dynamic into our experience to balance the static.
>  It would seem that your regard for Lila is based on some static
> values of your own.

You might be better served learning something about storytelling
before writing crap like this... Lila is not a hero... she is a
prostitute, she killed her daughter, and if that's not enough, she
jumps into bed with anyone she hopes will take care of her. She is an
opponent of Phaedrus, along with Rigel. An opponent isn't necessarily
a villain, however. An opponent serves to give the story a kind of
tension... in this case a tension between biological values (Lila),
social values (Rigel), and intellectual values (Phaedrus).

>
> The perception of social and intellectual results at the cost of all
> else is what Pirsig is referring to.  It is quite easy in the hall of
> philosophy to get lost in the printed word.  The introduction of a
> spiritual rationality relies on diminishing the impact of concepts on
> a realization of the present moment, imo.  If not, one can only follow
> sq, and such a thing is what Pirsig is trying to caution against.

No, no, no... this is all wrong and I don't even know how to go about
unraveling it. Totally fucked up reasoning...

>
> I could go on, but I think you know what I am speaking of.  If not, I
> would be glad to further explain my opinions.
>

Please don't,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com