Diana, Thanks for the info Diana. A little slow responding as I've been out and about rather than sat at my PC. Glad to see that it made it on to the list. Prejudice is a funny thing. As I read this post I felt angry as it was clearly nonsense yet I'd hardly started reading it. Why should I feel angry, somebody had simply forwarded this for my interest? Little alarm bells start ringing. This probably means that I dislike the suggestion as it attacks the fairly comfortable white-middleclass-male lifestyle I inhabit and my mind is trying not to think about this but simply drum up a few rationalisations. This doesn't mean the points are true simply that they may be inconvenient for me. It's true that 'It's completely unfair to express disgust at her' for natural ageing yet fairness is an intellectual reaction whilst this disgust is a low-level biological reaction. Biology isn't fair. Sometimes the most terrible thoughts and feelings go through our minds, things that our intellects rebel against. I'm not a Freudian but I don't think that pretending that these things don't happen is the way to go; if I don't acknowledge what goes on inside of me how can I select actions and words are appropriate to use? An interesting point is that his intellect seemed revolted by Lila yet he still felt sexual attraction. This conflict of biology and intellect over the matter of sex is hardly new but does fit with Pirsig's later levels of MOQ. The suggestion of institutionalized sexism brings in a social level too. that with in a single person can be conflicts of biological, social and intellectual levels. The book operates on the social level as well as the intellectual level so the social context in which the book is written shouldn't be ignored. The answer to Pirsig's apparent sexism? Possibly he simply didn't 'see' it in the same way I didn't see it when I read it. We humans like to think that we are rational yet I know that I act as much on social conventions, selfish biology or plain old stupidity and ignorance as on careful reasoning. That isn't a good excuse I know but it could be the truth (The idea of Pirsig's acting irrationally goes against the 'godhood principle' of slow reading, I'll take the flaming as read!). David, I agree with your comments on the opening sentence and following discussion on that. This was what I was trying to say only better put. In the true definition of slow-reading the sexism issue is off-topic as it clearly isn't part of the author's intent to discuss this. Still the author can inadvertently raise issues that are of interest and bear discussion. If the group is to be open to newbies, of which I am one, then some latitude is needed. I don't envy Keith's job in deciding what to let through! Probably 'techno-cyber math geeks' makes a pretty good description for me. I'll give the thing another listen. Jonathan, Pretty good summary of the state of play in your post. 'So instead of voting to move on, let's "vote" by not posting. Let's say that we give each Chapter a minimum of 2 weeks and then extend it until the posts dry up e.g. for 3 days.' Sounds reasonable, I'm sure that Keith's commonsence will dictate when is a good time to prod people into the next chapter. Lee MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
