[MD] Definitions.

[David Thomas]

On 2/16/13 3:50 PM, "David Buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:


>>> > Arlo said:
>>> > Or they read LILA and saw Lila as the hero and Phaedrus as the enemy,
>>> rather 
>>> > than the dialogue between them, and are stuck in Lila's assessment of
>>> > Phaedrus-as-intellect as "A big phony smokestack. That's exactly what he
>>> is. 
>>> > He thinks he's so smart. It's all over his face. And he's not smart. He's
>>> > stupid. He doesn't know anything. He doesn't even know what a hustler is.
>>> He 
>>> > doesn't even know how stupid he is." (LILA).
  
>> > Dave Thomas replied:
>> > Why would Pirsig, the author, put this kind of line in there? Could it just
>> be 
>> > that he was a little more aware of his biases.  That he was a "left brained
>> > kind of guy" with little direct experience with the Zen, holistic, context,
>> > right side. Maybe as caution to others with the same bias to be aware of
>> that 
>> > condition.

 
>> > dmb says:
>> > I think you have it backwards, Dave. Lila, the character, is obviously not
>> > giving us an accurate report about Phaedrus. Her contemptuous attitude
>> toward 
>> > him is only consistent with HER character and personality. She's a wash-up
>> > prostitute with very little social quality and no intellectual quality at
>> all. 
>> > She's not capable of understanding him or his world. She's a woman a very
>> low 
>> > self-esteem and she's lashing out in anger. She's calling him stupid (170
>> > I.Q.) is a projection of sorts. His intelligence makes her feel stupid and
>> she 
>> > hates him for that. "He doesn't even know what a hustler is," she says, as
>> if 
>> > intelligence were about familiarity with crime, vice, and sin in the dirty
>> > piss-soaked  streets of New York. Her perspective is very limited by her
>> > ignorance and distorted by her mental illness. That's what these lines of
>> > dialogue show. She's the title character but she's nobody's hero.
> 
D:
Didn¹t I recently read a line somewhere about the appropriateness of
³rationality² in the bedroom?
Guess that doesn¹t apply scumbag whores who, accord to the MoQ, for all
intents and purposes are biological patterns, like in bitch.... dog. And
should be treated that way. You know when you get tired of them just take
them to a big city and abandon them. Ideally in the cold rain.

I believe ³The Question² of Pragmatism goes something like, ³If the MoQ were
true what practical, differences would it make in the future?²

As James found out you have consider both the intended and unintended
consequence. That his critics and some of his unwished for admirers might
boil pragmatism down to its crudest form of ³the ends justifying the means²
and then apply it, has Pirsig commenting:
> 
> James would probably have been horrified to find that Nazis could use his
> pragmatism just as freely as anyone else, but Phaedrus didn't see anything
> that would prevent it. Lila pg 170

I think you are spot on with your evaluation of the MoQ. Particularly the
unintended consequences.

Boiled down to it¹s crudest form, like was done with pragmatism, The MoQ
says the higher your IQ the better, more moral a person you are. But it¹s
even better than that!  All you really have to do is claim you¹re an
³intellectual following dynamic quality² and you have the moral right to
judge, and act on those judgments, up to and including use of lethal force
on any individual or society you deem to be lesser than you. (Axiom1 :
Better that an idea kill a society than a society kill an idea)  I can see
Mao rolling in his grave and saying, ³Sweet !!!!!!!!: (In Chinese of course)

Then there¹s Pirsig¹s goal of marrying East and West. Reading your
characterization of Lila above and agreeing it is an accurate portrayal of
the principles of MoQ, I can¹t help but wonder if Buddha might not ask,
³Where¹s the compassion?²

Not necessary, with the MoQ you have nice static moral order to tell you
what¹s right from wrong.

Best not lose your IQ certificate,  though.

Dave