Man, I disagree with so much of your polemic here dave, i don't know where to start. Other than one brick at a time.
Lila, the character, is intellectually nowhere. Socially, she's pretty far > down the scale. She's a former prostitute whose heart is full of grief and > shame and whose sanity is slipping away. As far as static quality goes, > she's got some only in terms of biology and that's fading too. She needs to > go through her insanity if there is going to be any hope of a real recovery. > She needs to come out better than cured on the other side. But she probably > won't get the kind of space and freedom that she needs. Instead, she'll > probably join a 12-step program and get religion. It's more likely that > she'll become what Rigel thinks she should be. > > I don't get those kinds of judgements from the text, you seem to be reading an awful lot of misinformed opinion into the narrative. Projecting again are we? Got mother troubles dave? Lila is troubled person. She adapts to her troubles with irrational behaviors. Who doesn't? Normal people coping with an insane world tend to get that way sometimes. You're the one who's coming off all Rigelistically moral here. Lila is just dealing with it. As best she can. No, she's not real intellectually oriented, in the way that usually means. Chicks usually aren't, in my experience. And practically nobody is, compared to Phaedrus! So that's the story as it goes. I don't get your vituperation. > You see this sorry configuration in the way she treats the captain. > Biologically speaking, she couldn't be nicer to him. But socially speaking, > she's a rude user, an ungracious guest whose willing to betray her host at > the drop of hat. And intellectually, forget about it. She refuses to answer > the captain's questions on the premise that he's only asking in order to > destroy her. She's way too neurotic and paranoid to have any kind of > intellectual conversation, or even a pleasant conversation. > There are some places that intellectualism just don't cut it. Everybody knows that dave. Lila reminds us of that. Or rather, RMP uses Lila to reminds us that. Let's not forget that this isn't a documentary, but a work of fiction with a purpose and meaning beyond the simple soap-opera mentality you seem to be coming from. > Does Lila have Quality? Well, yes and no. The question is not supposed to > have one clear and simple answer. Exactly! A point I've been trying to get across to you in differing forms. None of us is excluded from being potentially messiahs or degenerates. We are all in process. We are all on a continuum, and its the harsh judgemental tones that Rigel takes in thinking he's got everything all moralistically figured out that grates. And resonates. Resonates with what I'm reading of you and your opinionated judgemental attitude. > he book asks us to think about her in terms of DQ and the levels of static > quality and from the various perspectives. Her former pimp sees her one way. > Rigel's judgmental eyes see her another way and then there is the captain's > view. As I read it, these perspectives correlate with the biological, social > and intellectual levels respectively. This reading fits with the assessment > that she's presently a train wreck in terms of static quality but > Dynamically something big is happening. But then why can't you wait and see with us, and as the author intends, to find out? Why jump to the conclusions you do? You see her with the eyes of her pimp and her enemy. Interesting. > Not too many people know that this character was based on an actual person > and a true story. Her real name: Martha Stewart. > Ah, now I know you're projecting. And fantasizing at the same time. If that's not a redundancy. John 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
