(In the thread titled "Dividing the Tao: OZ - Part 1/4) Krimel said:
As to the "textual evidence" produced to show the essential goodness of DQ. Let
me offer what I think is the most compelling evidence for the utter ambiguity
of DQ, the horror of it, its inexplicable attraction and repulsion. I offer the
woman Lila. She is DQ. She is promiscuous, depressed and in the end a
danger to herself and others. It is easy to read into both of Pirsig's tales a
certain nobility in insanity. His madman sees the world as no one has before.
His crazy bitch is a religion of one. [...] In her lucid moments Lila breaks up
homes and sleeps her way across a continent . [...] She schemes to steal,
smuggle and murder; she cycles through phases of indifference and absorption in
every bad thing that has happened in a lif full of bad things. And yet she has
this Dynamic Quality Pirsig can never quite put his finger on. Only in
fiction could Lila's Dynamic Quality seem noble, desirable, or mystical. But it
is surely irrational, chaotic and terrifying.
dmb says:
I think there is a fairly serious problem with the "textual evidence" that you
are offering as the "most compelling evidence" for your assertion, namely its
total absence. Textual evidence is a citation, a quote, a passage of text. I
wish you had included such evidence and I hope you will in the future but what
you offered was your assertion (she is DQ) and your description of her
character. Regardless of whether or not your assertion is true and regardless
of whether or not your description of Lila is accurate, you offered no textual
evidence of any kind, not a single citation of any text. Is this just some kind
of "oops, I forgot" kind of thing? Or do you not understand what counts as
"textual evidence"?
The title character certainly does illustrate some of Pirsig's most important
philosophical ideas, so she really is a great discussion topic. There are tons
of quotes about her and her battle is everybody's battle, etc. I like that
approach, Krimel, and will adopt it myself but first a few more points about
the use of "textual evidence".
It's a very helpful practice in all sorts of ways. When used properly, quotes
will lend authority and legitimacy to quoter's argument. When used properly,
quotes can serve as a powerful way to dispute the dubious assertions of others.
But citing the text is not about winning the argument just for the sake of
winning, as in some trivial game. Selecting and presenting quotes that are
relevant to the issue in dispute gives everyone the chance to take a closer
look at the thing we're here to discuss. Quotes from Pirisg's books are
specific features of our primary subject matter. It's a good way to focus on
the nuts and bolts of the MOQ. Since it's impractical to think or talk about
everything at once, grappling with the precise meaning of specific quotes is
the best way to directly examine the MOQ, which the main purpose of this forum.
The resistance to this very common and sensible practice is really quite
absurd and unbecoming.
I mean, regardless of your reasons or intentions (or Marsha's), the evasion and
denigration of textual evidence will only make you look like a weasel. Suppose
we are looking at a motorcycle instead of a metaphysics and I make a claim
about what's wrong with the carburetor. You disagree and say it's working just
fine. How do you settle this. You go find the right pieces of the carburetor
and you take a good look at them, together, and honestly discuss what you're
seeing. Now suppose that one of the disputants refuses to look at the object in
dispute. Suppose he has a habit of brushing those bike parts and pieces off the
table whenever they're laid out for examination. Don't you think the other
examiner would be justified in complaining about that? That's how I see your
refusal to deal with textual evidence, Krimel. It really does look THAT
childish and ridiculous to me. It's not credible or even respectable in the
least.
As to the substance of the matter, I think it's a mistake to equate Lila with
DQ. She is very Dynamic, no doubt about that. But she's no mystic. She's just a
chaotic mess, right? Is that because, as you claimed yesterday, chaos and
Dynamic Quality are equivalent? So it seems, since you're making a case for the
dark downside of DQ. But I disputed yesterday's claim, with supporting textual
evidence, saying that chaos is a result of ignoring static quality, of CLINGING
to Dynamic Quality ALONE. I think it's simply a way of saying that static
patterns provide stability and chaos is a total lack of this stability. He's
not saying that DQ is chaos. As I'd put it, DQ is freedom and static patterns
are order and you need both. Too much freedom is degenerate and pure freedom is
chaos.
"In the past Phaedrus' own radical bias caused him to think of Dynamic Quality
alone and neglect static patterns of quality. Until now he had always felt that
these static patterns were dead. They have no love. They offer no promise of
anything. To succumb to them is to succumb to death, since that which does not
change cannot live. But now he was beginning to see that this radical bias
weakened his own case. Life can't exist on Dynamic Quality alone. It has no
staying power. To cling to Dynamic Quality alone apart from any static patterns
is to cling to chaos."
Pirsig's descriptions of Lila illustrate this very same point.
"Lila's problem wasn't that she was suffering from a lack of Dynamic freedom.
It's hard to see how she could possibly have any more freedom. What she needed
now were stable patterns to ENCASE that freedom. She needed some way of being
re-integrated into the rituals of everyday living. ..These defensive pattens
were not only as bad as the patterns she was running from, they were worse!
..RTA. That's what was missing from her life. Ritual." (Lila 386)
And the defensive pattens referred to in the quote above is what made her so
unstable. She's just oblivious to the static patterns of everyday life. She
can't discern the difference between sociopathic street thugs and "great
people". Social and intellectual static quality are both "outside her range"
and that's why she "missed the whole point of everything". That's why "Lila's
religion of one doesn't have a chance." (Lila 372) She's suffering from a lack
of order, the result of which is degeneracy and chaos.
"He wondered what it was about himself that she couldn't see when he was
getting angry. Just now at the cafe she'd gone on for fifteen minutes about
what great people they were and she never saw what was coming. She missed the
whole point of everything. She's after Quality, like everybody else, but she
defines it entirely in biological terms. She doesn't see intellectual quality
at all. It's outside her range. She doesn't even see social quality." (Lila 214)
Lila's refusal to be cross-examined is not something to be admired. It just
shows how she misses of the whole point of everything. Her defensive pattens
are even worse than the ones she's running from and they only act to further
isolate and unravel her already vacuous mind. This is not something to emulate
or admire, as Marsha does. That's backwards. Lila is an example of what can
happen when static quality is lacking. She is an example of what we DON'T want
for ourselves or others. Pirsig shows a few ways out, beginning with the order
that ritual offers, which is the at the roots of social order. That's how far
gone she is. The fact that her recovery requires a starting point that far down
the scale is damn sad fact. But one can hope. Anyway, Lila's Dynamic Quality
does NOT seem at all noble, desirable, or mystical to me. That's my point. I
think the evidence says you can't life right without the stability that static
patterns offer and that is Lila's problem and in a narro
wer, conceptual sense, that is Marsha's problem too. It's no accident that she
identifies with the title character, I suppose.
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
