Bo <br>I was first annoyed, then disappointed and
finally slightly cynically amused inreaction to your
previous comment:<br><br>"I am a bit reluctant to speak
about the Quality Metaphysics' impact on the "meaning
of life" issue, it has a religious ring to it and we
are supposed to be strictly rational,"<br><br>Who is
this "we"? This is an open, informal chat website not
an academic university department! There are no
rules of what you can say (outside lewdness or
insults). I was so glad to have this forum to try and
express my experiences of Pirsig's work. My responses are
definitely not limited to rational thoughts! I welcomed the
chance to the chance to share responses with others in a
non-pretentious way, non-academic way. <br><br>Infact, my whole
reason for starting to write to this site was my strong
EMOTIONAL response to the underlying PHILOSOPHICAL message
I got through reading Pirsig's LILA. <br>For me,
Pirsig's 'metaphysics of quality' goes beyond rational
discussion. This is philosophy. Philosophy has always been
and continues to be mankind's search for higher
meaning to life (and the universe and everything), by
tackling the difficult, fundamental questions over the
millennia of history, without resorting to the belief in
God to explain away any difficulties in a viewpoint.
<br>That is the only important difference with a religion.
At it's most abstract I BELIEVE in the idea and
reality of GOOD and VALUE, and know how these things are
fundamental to my finding meaning in my life. I would imagine
no one will manage to PROVE the idea that QUALITY
underpins the universe. At that level it is a belief, and a
very beautiful one at that… in the sense that pure
mathematics can be beautiful, and a genius chess game can be
beautiful, and well as the more romantic examples of beauty
known as harmony, love and truth.<br><br>His book gave
me an intellectual framework which made more sense
of the mess of human existence, (from past to
possible future evolutions) than thinkers limited to
rational thought, which I see as part of the
subject/objective way of dividing up the universe and our
experiences.<br><br>Funnily enough, your opening comments remind me of just
that kind of dogmatic approach that I see as the
driving force behind Pirsig's writing. He speaks out so
well against intellectual academic "-ologists" in the
form of university professors' who blight education
systems around the world. I applaud his 'kick against the
pricks' by exposing those narrow-minded thinkers' refusal
to live in the 'real world' of full human
experience, by being wrapped up in an inward-looking
self-referential spiral of dry theories, retreating away from
common experience with the rest of humanity.
<br><br>Enlightenment is the aim, not mystification or complicated
mumbo jumbo only academics could read. <br><br>Let
emotion in!<br>GOODLOVE fae Sara