Posters and silent observers: I wish there were time to address all the issues raised in the latest flurry of posts. I think there has been some meaty posts lately and am grateful for them. Walter's answer to Clark was top drawer stuff. It was precisely what the "hierarcy of ideologies" post was all about. But there are two issues that interest me most: "celebrities" and the "Truth vs Quality" debate. THE UNVARNISHED TRUTH Glove and jc, among others, have been discussing this topic. I think its safe to say that Pirsig's "many truths provisionality" is at the heart of the debate. I think there is a murky and incorrect interpretation of Pirsig's idea and it has turned the notion into a paralyzing nihilism where everything is everything and nothing matters. Here's what I mean... Pirsig's "many truths" idea is a remedy to SOM's "Truth" with a capital "T". SOM's Truth is exclusive, its part of that amoral objectivity problem. Instead, Pirsig's "many truths" offers a different view, where truth is spelled with a small "t", so to speak. It is consistent with the idea that every part of reality is made of value, but that it exists as different levels of value. Its "true" that sex is good. Its "true" that fidelity is good. Its true that freedom is good. There are many truths and sometimes they conflict, but that doesn't make them less true, just true on different levels. So the question is NOT "Is it true?". The question ought to be "How is it true?" Pirsig's "many truths" idea shouldn't be interpreted to mean that every idea is equally valid. If Pirsig thought that was true he wouldn't have spent so many years trying to come up with a better explanation of things. It ought not be construed to mean that every opinion is correct. The provisonality of the MOQ ought not be constured that way either. This notion is not all that fancy. Its Pirsig's respect for the ongoing evolutionary process, for the creative force behind it all. Its a bow to DQ and the mystic. But its also as conventional and rational as the scientific method. Good scientists know that new data can change everything and new data is excactly what excites them most. Science is open ended. E=MC2 is true, but its not thee "Truth". I think its ok if we think of the MOQ as truth with a small "t". Or we could say that its the "highest quality intellectual explanation of things", but its such a mouthful and really means the same thing. The whole POINT is simply that we can't let Pirsig's "many truths provisionality" become an excuse for sloppy thinking. We can't let it lead us into another moral vacuum. Everything matters. Einstein was a CELEBRITY. Still is. I really hate Tom Cruise. He stole my woman. Plus he's extremely mediocre. But seriously, this "celebrity" thing is much, much deeper than one might imagine. The gods are the original and the ultimate celebrities. And it does function on a social level. But it's also deeply psychological. I don't know if a full explanation can be achieved in a single post, but I'll sketch a few lines and just hope you recall the details... Pirsig's meeting with Redford. The MOQ is intellectual, but movies are only social. No deal. Butch and Sundance as the embodiment of Plains Indian values, in sepia tone. Campell's "THE MASKS OF GOD" will tell you what social values are all about. The take-over by the intellectual level occurs after the "death of God". All we ever get are mirrors. Celebrities are collective mirrors. These "Heros" are our models. They embody ancient patterns of value. They demonstate it. Act it out. They live out our dreams as they live out their own. That's why the Zuni shaman became Governor. Celebrity status is nearly everything in high school. Its a lesser thing in college, as it should be. Fame and fortune, status and authority are rewards for those who serve the "Giant". There are very probably a few other scenes and ideas concerning celebrity in Lila. Its not really one of the MAIN themes, one has to string some things together and it doesn't hurt to bring in some additional materials, like the works of Cambell as mentioned at the end of the book, but Pirsig does paint a picture of celebrity as a powerful and ancient force. Movie stars are interesting because they function as celebrities in several ways at once. Charleton Heston is rich and famous in his own right, but he also portrays and wears the face of guys like Moses. He can be admired as a comtemorary success and for the fine characters he plays in the movies. And it doesn't have to be a bible movie. ET is a Christ figure. Rambo is a kind of mythic warrior. Luke Skywalker is the classic hero. Indiana Jones and John Wayne. Movies are almost inherently mythic, as is any good story. Gods, monsters, heros and movie stars. What's the difference? Not much. There are much better heros than my examples might indicate. But it doesn't need to be sophisticated or intellectual. Movie, for the most part, operate on the social level. They're about action more than ideas. The best stories have ideas in them, but its between the lines, so to speak. Sometimes a movie is truely inspired and can rightly be called art, don't you think? David B. MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
