Hi Jon (and John), > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Jon Bennett > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 10:30 PM > > To be honest, its Lila, I haven't absorbed, or even finished. But I've > read > some sheer nonsense in both books. Case in point, a mystic dynamic > quality > person gets off a hot stove faster than a scientifically inclined > static > based person. [Mary Replies] Pirsig is not saying that your reaction time to a hot stove is dependent upon your philosophical belief system. He's simply saying that everybody, no matter their belief system, gets off that stove as fast as possible. He's using this as a vehicle to introduce an exploration into the weaknesses inherent in the common explanations of why we get off the stove. The MoQ offers a new answer. > > I am a bit of a dilettante, but I've studied the issues Pirsig deals > with > long and hard. Besides, a child could pick out the foolishness in some > of > his ideas. He makes sweeping generalizations about all religions, with > extreme bias as to their value. He even states the Bible promotes a > flat > earth view. And often conflates Biblical world view with that of modern > science in one fell swoop.
[Mary Replies] You are really strongly objecting to something here, but I don't know what. Can you cite what you are reading that you object to? > I do give Prisig a lot of credit for his writing and introducing such > complex and important ideas. And he does raise good questions and have > some > good insights. But he is a dilettante, or rank amateur, when it comes > to > philosophy. And its a ridiculous idea that book sales, or popularity is > some > measure of truth or profundity. [Mary Replies] I agree that a philosophy cannot be measured by book sales. In fact, I also agree with your previous post where you said that ZAMM was a better book than Lila. ZAMM was passionate and heartfelt. You could feel the agony pouring out onto the page as this poor guy wrestled with his personal daemons. It was compelling and totally riveting. Reading the two books, one gets the sense that ZAMM was written in a rushing outpour while Lila was designed to illustrate a point. A world of difference there, artistically speaking, and if I had to choose which one I'd rather curl up with on a chilly night when all I wanted was some escapist entertainment, I'd pick ZAMM. But philosophically speaking, Lila is head and shoulders the more profound. ZAMM was the prelude. ZAMM set the stage by posing the metaphysical context upon which the theory (the new metaphysics itself) was then presented in Lila. As a work of entertainment ZAMM was the better book. As a work of ideas Lila is. I look forward to your thoughts. - Mary 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/md/archives.html
