Nice work, Mary. I think you're right too. Never gave it too much thought, this idea that Pirsig was aiming at an audience of regular Americans. But I was lucky enough to spend some time with his old pal John Sutherland, who was half of the couple that went on the original bike trip. When Pirsig first started writing what would become that book, it was something like an essay or letter for John. And that fits with what you're saying. He's a smart guy and a regular American but he's not a professional philosopher or a historian. He's a drummer who likes to ride bikes and drink beer. He was still a very fun dude even though he's gotta be near 80 years old. Still drums too. Had a gig while I was in town, in fact. But it seems he's done with the beer. The one thing I found really striking about the interview in Ant's documentary was John's sympathy for the fact that Pirsig was all alone back in those days. Nobody knew what the hell he was talking about, not even his buddy John. There was very nearly a tear in his eye when he told that part of the story, not just because of his friend's pain but maybe even like he felt partly responsible for it. Anyway, I think that part of the power of the book is that it expects a lot from the reader, assumes that they'll bring a pretty high level of intelligence and yet it is plain spoken, jargon free and has a casual, conversational style as if he's talking right to you like a friend. This is one of the upsides of having a people-pleasing schmoozer for a narrator, I guess, instead of that prick, Phaedrus. More to the point, I think it's only reasonable to think that the social level was pregnant for a while, that the intellectual level began its first growth stages within the body of the social level, so to speak. And maybe we could say that even after it was born, it was still attached to its parent and not yet even able to distinguish the difference between mom and itself. On this analogy, the increasing power of abstraction was taking shape as a skill but it was always used for social purposes. The use of astronomy and mathematics to construct temples of worship, for example, seems like a very axial thing to do. None of this addresses Bo's emphatic insistence that intelligence has nothing to do with the intellectual level. That never made any sense to me. I think it's obvious that intellectual values and the intellectual level are both predicated on an increased power to handle abstractions. Since Pirsig's levels are levels of value, I think it's safe to say that he doesn't just have some cold, mechanical calculating machine in mind here, but it certain is about the evolution of cognitive functions. I don't mean brains or anything biological. That equipment evolves much more slowly. But the increasing ability of "thought" is not denied just because we reject the Cartesian subject or SOM. Thought is real, it's just that we no longer buy into the idea that there is a substance or fixed entity that does the thinking. When we say "it rains" there is no "it" that does the raining. The rain itself is it. Same with thinking. Its a process, a phase or function within experience and not a thi ng.
My two cents, dmb > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 19:20:32 -0600 > Subject: Re: [MD] Intellect's Symposium > > Hello Bo and Dave T.! > > I think we can agree on a few things. > > All humans everywhere, at every time since the beginning of our species have > had roughly equivalent mental capacity. As individuals, we are not > identical (I am no Einstein, for instance), but we all fall within a pretty > well defined range in the same way you could say that my cat is just as > smart as any other cat. Ok? I don't expect to get any argument about this. > > I was fascinated to learn about the Axial Age you mentioned, Dave. I'd > never heard the term before, but after reading a little about it, could see > that it fit perfectly with what I think Pirsig was trying to explain in > Lila. Per Wiki, "German philosopher Karl Jaspers coined the term the axial > age (Ger. Achsenzeit, "axistime") to describe the period from 800 BC to 200 > BC, during which, according to Jaspers, similar revolutionary thinking > appeared in China, India and the Occident." That's pretty unmistakably > inclusive. I'll bet Pirsig's heard of it too. > > Here's where I expect to get a little bit of argument from one or the other > of you, though frankly I'm not sure which. My take on it is that Pirsig > wrote Lila with a completely Western (dare I narrow that even further to say > American) audience in mind. Now I'm no rocket scientist, but know for a > fact that I benefit from more formal education than the majority of > Americans. This is true of many on this forum, and doesn't mean anything > special other than to point out that if I've never heard of Indian or > Chinese intellectual achievements, or the "Axial Age", then most other > people in Pirsig's target audience probably haven't either. > > Given that, if you're going to write a mass market book to explain a new > metaphysics to Americans, would you cloud the issue with having to explain a > bunch of stuff about Indian and Chinese achievements, or would you narrow > the scope and just focus on the one place everybody in your audience has > heard of to make your point? I'm willing to bet that even people who are > illiterate have heard of the Greeks. I do not believe for a minute that > Pirsig's intention is to slight other cultures, belittle their achievements, > or imply that they are not "intellectual". I think he was simply trying to > make his point in as clear and concise a way as possible for his target > audience. > > I think (and you guys can let me have it now) that the MoQ is basically a > Buddhism wolf in Western sheep's clothing. You will get absolutely nowhere > in the West talking about reincarnation or karma (blasphemy or New Age > wool-gathering) OK? If you are going to offer Western Civilization some > kind of alternative to our destructive materialistic monotheism, you better > explain it in non-threatening terms. And, I think Pirsig decided to make a > mass appeal because he anticipated the kind of reception he'd receive in the > academic community. He came right out and said as much. It's there for us > to see in Lila. > > Mary > > - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. > > > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469230/direct/01/ 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
