Re: LS Lets start from the first sentence.

[Jonathan B. Marder]

Hi all,
   I think that Andreas needs more support with the very slow reading.
(I hope I'm not spoiling it by rushing on to paragraph two in the latter
part of this post).

DAVID B. is giving us mixed messages about the weight of  meaning in the
first sentence.
<<>>

David is welcome to his preference for discussing Orion, but his
reasoning is self contradictory.

<<>>

Till here, I agree. Lots of reasons why the first sentence is worth a
second (and third and fourth) look.

<<>>
Let's drop the pejorative "just another". The first sentence has to put
MANY things into the proper context. The novel operates on a number of
levels, so there may be a hint of this in the first sentence (as is
already becoming clear from the discussion).

However, I must yet again draw attention to the very first word "Lila".
I find it very hard to believe that Pirsig had never heard the word in
its Hindu context after his years of philosophical study including a
long stretch in India. He didn't exactly push out Lila the novel in any
great hurry, and I assume that he wrote it with a great deal of care (it
certainly looks that way). For Pirsig to have simply "overlooked" the
Hindu meaning of Lila would indicate uncharacteristic carelessness (to
RMP, if you are reading this, I apologise if this looks offensive
because it isn't intended to be).

KEITH claimed not to see my "solipsism" point, but then goes on with a
GOOD post about dreams, pointing out that Lila's "fearful dream" in the
second sentence is the first of 23(!) dreams mentioned in the novel. I
think that there's a strong conceptual link between dreams and
solipsism, and this is going to keep coming up throughout the novel.

Now let me "fast forward" to paragraph two. Lila is presented as "softly
cherubic, like a small girl with blond hair, wide cheekbones, a small
turned-up nose, and a common child's face that seemed o familiar it
attracted a certain natural affection."
There's nothing new about Lila. She is a picture that we can see a
thousand times and still love. Pirsig is showing us the GOOD in the
familiar.
The very next sentence continues the theme:
"He got the feeling that when morning came she shouldd pop open her
sky-blue eyes and they should sparkle with excitement at the prospect of
a new day of sunlight and parents smiling and maybe bacon cooking on the
stove and happiness everywhere".
As a parent, I appreciate that (not the bacon though;-)
Things don't have to be unique or "special" to be good. Don't we all
appreciate (and even crave) things that we've enjoyed countless times
before - the everyday foods served on a thousand kitchen tables, the ten
thousandth kiss from a loved one? As several contributors like to remind
us, "IT'S ALL GOOD"

Jonathan 



MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org

Re: LS Lets start from the first sentence.

[ram]

Hi fast readers... :)

Sorry i'm so slow (too busy, usual excuses...) I hadn't seen my Email for 4
days and chapter one is done... 
Personally, i'm sorry because I hardly had time this week to read, not to
mention - write. I really liked the VERY SLOW reading of the first phrase of
the book. Keith had it all sorted in his last post. 

I think Jonathan has a very good idea:

 >So instead of voting to move on, let's "vote" by not posting. Let's say
 >that we give each Chapter a minimum of 2 weeks and then extend it until
 >the posts dry up e.g. for 3 days.



Andreas wrote:
 >MOQ is a highly valuable place but the bridge for an everyday person is IMO
 >long and narrow. Only a few manage - and I suppose nearly all of these
 >people base on a solid philosophical background... 
 >For me this place is a jungle and I
 >wonder if there shouldn't be a cozy little playground open for newcomers and
 >relaxing for the knightly pursuers of DQ.

I'm  a newbie too. no philosophical background either. I loved what you
wrote. I trust the slow reading group will give us an oppertunity to be both
knights and children... 



MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org

Re: LS Lets start from the first sentence.

[Keith A. Gillette]

At 10:53 PM 5/14/2000 +0300, Jonathan B. Marder wrote:
 >IMHO, that first sentence "Lila didn't know he was here." offers a lot
 >of scope e.g. for discussing the Pirsig's views on perception and
 >solipsism. Anyone want to play?

A late entry ...

"Lila didn’t know he was here. She was sound asleep, apparently in some 
fearful dream. In the darkness he heard a grating sound of her teeth and 
felt her body suddenly turn as she struggled against some menace only she 
could see."

It really does take discipline not to rush through this stuff, doesn't it? 
I've read this book 10 times and never really paid attention to the 
passages enough to really think about what Pirsig is doing. I think 
Jonathan is right that this opening offers a lot of scope. I don't know 
that it has much to do with solipsism, as others have pointed out, but it 
does introduce quite a bit of the book if you look closely.

Take the second sentence: Lila is sound asleep, in some fearful dream. This 
is literally true here, but figuratively her situation throughout the book. 
And our situation, as well. As Shakespeare says, "Life is but a dream ..." 
I think Pirsig would agree. The epistemology he constructs demotes our 
waking perceptions from the privileged position of direct apprehension of 
reality to one possible pattern of belief, blurring the distinction between 
dream and reality. Sanity is the culturally-approved pattern, the shared 
dream. Any pattern that deviates too far from this pattern is "insane." 
Forgive the forward references, but Chapter 25 makes this point clear:

"That was what was wrong with making a film about his book. You can’t film 
insanity.
Maybe if, during the show, the whole theatre collapsed and the audience 
found themselves among the stars with just space all around and no support, 
wondering what a stupid thing this is, sitting here among the stars 
watching this film that has nothing to do with them and then suddenly 
realizing that this film is the only reality there is and that they had 
better get interested in it because what they see and what they are is the 
same thing and once it stops they will stop too.…
That’s it. Everything! Gone!!
Nothing left!!
And then after a while this dream of some kind going on, and them in it.
That’s the way it was. He’d gotten so used to being in this dream called 
"sanity" he hardly ever thought about it any more. "

Of course, we slowly find out in coming chapters that Lila is mentally 
unstable, teetering toward insanity. She is operating under a pattern of 
belief different than the culture. She is struggling throughout the book as 
a result. But the struggle is not one we can share, as it is "against some 
menace only she could see." No one can see her adversary during this 
opening, because she's asleep and the menace is in her dream. Similarly, no 
one can see the menace she faces in 'real life' during her waking hours 
because here, too, she's "sound asleep," "in some fearful dream," the 
waking dream of her deviant patterns of belief. In Chapter 30, Pirsig tells 
us, "She’s a culture of one. She’s a religion of one. " No one else share's 
her particular "delusions," her waking "dream," the patterns of beliefs 
that makes her insane.

It is interesting to note that "dream" appears 23 times in the course of 
the book. Some of those instances are not significant, but a number of them 
are. Dreams are important in this book just as they were in ZMM. We get 
into both Phaedrus and Lila's dreams, his of "The Giant" in Chapter 17, and 
of returning to Blake in Chapter 21. For Lila, it's her continuing lapses 
into the dreamworld, her brushes with insanity. "Everything seemed so 
dreamy", Chapter 10. Chapter 23: "It seemed to Lila that all this was some 
kind of a dream she was in. " Chapter 25: "He watched her for a long time, 
then saw she was getting dreamy."

So I see what I had not seen before: The entire course of Lila, the book 
and the character, encoded in the very first paragraph; Pirsig's theory of 
perception, his views on sanity and religion, laid down in their simplest 
terms right here at the very beginning.

Best,
Keith

Keith A. Gillette  



MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org

RE: LS Lets start from the first sentence.

[Lee Lawrence]

Jonathon and my fellow Squadies,

Hmm, A danger of LS becoming a discussion group on slow reading itself 
rather than on lila so I'll out leave any responce on whether or not 
my views were compatible with the slowing reading idea.


[Jonathon]
 >Actually, I think we can see an ANTI-solipsist position from that
 >opening sentence.

Solipsism has never been a popular philosophy as its adherents have 
naturally tended not to have any interest in recruiting and so have
not popularised their theories to a non-existent audience.  Most 
metaphysical theories therefore reject solipsism and could be described 
as anti-Solipsist. One can indeed deduce that Pirsig isn't a Solipsist 
from this but is that what the author was seeking to communicate?  Simply
writing a book indicates he isn't a Solipsist. 


[Jonathon]
 >Why "Lila" - Pirsig spent several years studying at Benares, and surely
 >didn't pick the name accidentally. The Lila of Hinduism is the "play of
 >God" that gives the illusion of everyday reality. One can therefore read
 >the first sentence to mean that the "play of god" goes on irrespective
 >of the presence of "HE" being there to perceive it - an anti-solipsist
 >position.

Yeah I'd noticed that, the beginning of the book seems a good point to 
consider quite what Pirsig meant by 'lila'.  The Tantric connection would
fit with the challenge to objective western views, the Aristotelian views 
that he had addressed in ZAMM.  Solipsist or not aside the opening sentence 
might indicate that the question of perception is going to be important in 
this book, how we perceive things or fail to perceive them.  I'm a bit vague

about Hinduism but isn't lila also about the relative universe as manifest
in 
time and space?  This book is going to challenge many people's views of 
metaphysics and indeed that metaphysics at a time when Logical Positivism or

similar theories is popular amongst academic philosophers so perhaps he is 
warning us of this.

Lee,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org

Re: LS Lets start from the first sentence.

[Richard Budd]

 > Hey Jon,
 >
 > RICK:
 >  >IMHO, that first sentance is "simply" a rhetorical setup...
 >
JON:
With respect, let's not assume anything to be simple before we even
 > start.
 >
RICK:
  You'll notice that the word "simply" was in quotes I did that because I
DIDN'T want to suggest that it was actually "simple"... RMP's rhetoric is
usually quite complicated and intricate... the "simply" was meant to
emphasize that I believe the first sentace is rhetorical and not some veiled
solipsistic/antisolipsistic allusion I could be wrong though.

JON:
 > Why "Lila" - Pirsig spent several years studying at Benares, and surely
 > didn't pick the name accidentally. The Lila of Hinduism is the "play of
 > God" that gives the illusion of everyday reality >

RICK:
Pirsig himself claims that he never heard of the LILA from the Hindu
Vedas I forget where exactly he says this (maybe the new ZMM intro)...
I'll track it down.

All is well,
Rick 



MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org

Re: LS Lets start from the first sentence.

[Jonathan Marder]

Hi Rick, Lee, Andreas and all,

RICK
 >IMHO, that first sentance is "simply" a rhetorical setup...
With respect, let's not assume anything to be simple before we even
start.

LEE>
 > As Freud once said sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

We can't take this view if we act on the assumption that every word (of
Lila) is written by God, as suggested in
http://www.freelance-academy.org/slowread.htm

 > I'm not sure that ideas
 > of solipsism appear in lila

Actually, I think we can see an ANTI-solipsist position from that
opening sentence.

"Lila didn't know he was here."

Why "Lila" - Pirsig spent several years studying at Benares, and surely
didn't pick the name accidentally. The Lila of Hinduism is the "play of
God" that gives the illusion of everyday reality. One can therefore read
the first sentence to mean that the "play of god" goes on irrespective
of the presence of "HE" being there to perceive it - an anti-solipsist
position.

ANDREAS
 >The attention is focused on Lila. ' He ' is not
 >present in Lila's conciousness. 'He' has no name. A male without a
name.
 >Present but outside of the realms of Lila's awareness.

This way of reading produces an alternate antisolipsist interpretation.
"He was there" irrespective of whether the sleeping woman Lila (or
anyone else for that matter) was aware of him or not.

The only haven for the fervent solipsist is to say that this whole
opening scene is in the mind of the author etc. (an approach
demonstrated in "Sophie's World" by Norwegian author Jostein Gaarder).

Lee, are you still sure that "a cigar is just a cigar" applies in this
case?

Jonathan 



MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org

RE: LS Lets start from the first sentence.

[Lee Lawrence]

  > JON:
  > IMHO, that first sentence "Lila didn't know he was here." offers a lot
  > of scope e.g. for discussing the Pirsig's views on perception and
  > solipsism. Anyone want to play?

As Freud once said sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.  I'm not sure that
ideas
of solipsism appear in lila.  Sure later in the book Lila becomes catatonic 
but is catatonia embracing a form of solipsism or is it simply a rejection
of 
other people company and thinking?  Lila's thinking before her breakdown
shows 
her accepting the existence of other people readily enough.  

  > RICK:
  > I'll play.
  > IMHO, that first sentance is "simply" a rhetorical setup "Lila didn't
  > know he was here." - The reader is already asking, "Who is Lila?",
"Who
  > is he?", "Where are they???", "Why doesn't she know???" We are
already
  > looking for answers, a great frame of mind to begin any Inquiry.

That seems a good answer to me.

Lee Lawrence
e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]



MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org

Re: LS Lets start from the first sentence.

[Richard Budd]

   Hey...
So we begin

 > JON:
 > IMHO, that first sentence "Lila didn't know he was here." offers a lot
 > of scope e.g. for discussing the Pirsig's views on perception and
 > solipsism. Anyone want to play?

RICK:
I'll play.
IMHO, that first sentance is "simply" a rhetorical setup "Lila didn't
know he was here." - The reader is already asking, "Who is Lila?", "Who
is he?", "Where are they???", "Why doesn't she know???" We are already
looking for answers, a great frame of mind to begin any Inquiry.
Rick 



MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org