dmb, In LILA, I didn't think the Captain, Rigel or Lila were very attractive characters. The best aspect of the book, I thought, was the metaphysics.
Marsha On Mar 15, 2013, at 1:58 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > (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 > nar ro > 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 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
