LS: Slow reading
Squadies, [Diana] "We want to focus on the chapters, we want to get real intellectual discussion going, not just quoting and summarizing, we want to get as many people involved and we want it to be a productive and fun experience for all." Amen to that. "Wrt the requirement that members have read ZMM and LILA, having read Andreas comments I not sure that it is necessary to have read both books in their entirety after all." The rules do say that members should have read ZAMM in its entirety, I suppose it would be difficult to follow LILA and the discussion if you hadn't, but for LILA only that the member should 'read the appropriate chapter of *Lila* prior to each discussion period' not that the poster should have read the entire book so much of your later discussion of the merits of having people who haven't read the whole book doesn't conflict with the rules. "As for forward referencing and quoting from the chapters, I think we first need to clarify what the objective of the reading group is. If all we're going to do is go through the text, quote it and summarize it then it seems rather a bore to me. I would like to see the ideas raised in each chapter discussed on their own merits. As I see it, there are two things we have to do for each chapter: Objective 1. discuss what themes/arguments are raised Objective 2. evaluate those themes/arguments on their own merits" Sure we need to discuss the points that arise as well as summarize but these should be the questions and points that the author is thinking about not the reader's prior thinking. The point of slow reading IMHO is not to close down all original thoughts of the reader but to suspend the readers response until they have actually truly understood the meaning of the author's words then to respond. A good point in the 'over-ripe' breasts thing. Although the idea is to 'address the content of the current chapter in every post' and 'not pursue topics that do not arise from the current chapter' I agree with Diana that for some points it will be necessary to cross-reference other sections of the book other than the current chapter. Perhaps the thing is not to become too bound up by the letter of the rules so much as to keep to the spirit of the thing; to keep the central focus on the current chapter and keep things accessible to the newbie. I hadn't thought about the sexist thing. I suppose as a computer nerd I need someone to hit me over the head with the point before I see it. Still given the context of the scene, the morning after the night before, thinking about Lila's body would seem natural. In some respects it would seem less sexist for P. to genuinely see Lila's body than to relate to some male fantasy figure, see the person for who they are warts, over-ripe breasts and all. David gives an interesting slant on the whole thing. [RICK] I'd agree that sexism doesn't appear as a major theme in lila although Lila herself does spend some time thinking about men's attitude to women and their failure to understand them although women understand all about men (this appeals to my suspicious theory that the reason there are so few women philosophers is that they figured it out long ago and simply aren't telling!). This chapter deals with a sexual relationship between P. and Lila so talking about sexism doesn't seem so out of place. [David] Nice point about the autumnal imagery in chapter 1. Reading the chapter your point seems to hold together. Other interesting posts but no time to comment. Lee Lawrence e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
Re: LS Slow Reading
Rick, LS >DIANA: > > Objective 1. discuss what themes/arguments are raised > > Objective 2. evaluate those themes/arguments on their own merits > > >RICK: >I'm worried about things like this "Theme/arguments" raised by who Yes, I'm attempting to discuss methodology. Anyway move ahead, never mind, Diana MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
Re: LS Slow Reading
LS, The rules for the list should be the ones that are most conducive to achieving the desired results. We want to focus on the chapters, we want to get real intellectual discussion going, not just quoting and summarizing, we want to get as many people involved and we want it to be a productive and fun experience for all. Wrt the requirement that members have read ZMM and LILA, having read Andreas comments I not sure that it is necessary to have read both books in their entirety after all. In the other two forums having read the whole books is necessary because they are for the discussion of the MOQ as a whole. A chapter by chapter discussion is different though. Of course participants must at least have read the relevant chapter(s), but I'm not convinced they have to have read the whole book seeing as they are not required to discuss the whole book. Sure, it would probably be in their own interest, but if it's discouraging some newbies from participating then maybe we don't need to insist on it. If anything, I would imagine those who haven't read the whole book will focus on the relevant text more closely than those who have, because they won't be tempted to bring in their own favorite themes from later on. And, in fact, I actually think it might benefit the rest of us if we have a few people reading it for the first time because it gives the rest of us a chance to see it with a fresh perspective. Ever shown a visitor round your home town? As for forward referencing and quoting from the chapters, I think we first need to clarify what the objective of the reading group is. If all we're going to do is go through the text, quote it and summarize it then it seems rather a bore to me. I would like to see the ideas raised in each chapter discussed on their own merits. As I see it, there are two things we have to do for each chapter: Objective 1. discuss what themes/arguments are raised Objective 2. evaluate those themes/arguments on their own merits An example would be the "over-ripe" breasts passage in chapter one. We have had a few people complain that that is sexist. So does the question of Pirsig's sexism arise in chap 1? I'd say, yes, the question does arise, so it meets Objective 1. But to answer it you have to go beyond chapter one. Does Lila have any redeeming characteristics? Are there other unattractive female characters? What about the male characters? Are there any feminist arguments in Lila? So, I guess I'm asking the question, would that be a permissable discussion? If it isn't then it seems that all we can do is say, well some people thought that was a wee bit sexist, hmm . Diana MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
LS Slow Reading
Hi All Just a quick final (!!??) point regarding the procedural side of the slow reading. On 13 May 2000, at 14:57, Keith A.) wrote: > [David Buchanan] Gotta disagree. The standards should be higher. > It'll be great fro beginners just because we're sticking so close to the > text and looking at it in order and in context, but I think this third forum > could be, and in my opinion should be, the most focused and advanced one. I > think participants should not only have to have read ZAMM and Lila, but > should also be required to have very recently re-read the section under > discussion. But then again, I was just making a case for flexibility and one > of my favorite sayings is "Incompetence is the mother of originality." So, > whatever. > David, I agree with you almost completely in the above (it's gotta be a first :) ) but one thing I would like to make is that forward referencing should be absolutely minimal in the "slow reading". This occurred in the moq_focus discussion, especially in the discussion of the third chapter, and, in my opinion brought little value to the discussion. Each chapter should be discussed with an eye to the past and no 'cheating' by looking to the future. Horse MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
