[MD] The MOQ's First Principle

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: "ARLO J BENSINGER JR" <ajb102 at psu.edu>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] The MOQ's First Principle
>Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 08:36:24 -0500
>
>Dan, All,
>
>There is a new CNN brief
>(http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/11/griffin.oregon/index.html) that has me
>thinking about static-Dyanmic possible factors in this event. The brief 
>asks
>"Why did the Kims continue down such a desolate path when they so clearly 
>did
>not know where they were going?". After describing the "obvious" warning 
>signs
>(including actual signs) that should have given anyone pause to stop, the 
>brief
>goes on to say "But they did. Twenty miles down that desolate road, James 
>and
>Kati Kim and their two young daughters found themselves stranded in the 
>snowy
>wilderness."

Hi Arlo

It looks as if they kind of knew where they were going but the distances 
involved tripped them up. That can happen during snowy weather, especially 
in certain areas of the western US. I travel to New Mexico every January for 
some mountain time. Some years it's 70 degrees with sunny skies. Other years 
there's been 2 feet of snow and near blizzard conditions. I go prepared for 
either. I want to enjoy the mountains; I don't want to die.

>
>What strikes me about this is possible parallel between this and the 
>"Cleveland
>harbor story" in LILA. This is where Pirsig keeps going on, ignoring
>differences between his chart and his surroundings that should have clued 
>him
>to reassess where he thought he was. "Because of what his mind thought it 
>knew,
>it had built up a static filter, an immune system, that was shutting out 
>all
>information that did not fit. Seeing is not believing. Believing is 
>seeing."

Definitely a possibility.

>
>I say this because James Kim made one error above all others that he was 
>unaware
>of. As CNN described it, "we came to a fork in the road where a tiny sign 
>--
>almost invisible unless you actually stop the car and focus on it -- 
>pointed
>the way to the Oregon Coast. The sign pointed left. The Kims drove right." 
>He
>thought he was on the right road. He wasn't.
>
>In ZMM, Pirsig makes reference to a similar phenomenon he calls "value
>rigidity". He describes the South Indian monkey trap (you know it, I won't
>describe it).
>
>It seems to me that these come fairly close to describing what may have 
>kept
>James Kim driving along an old logging road, a "one lane, no guardrail, no
>markings, no "winding road ahead" signs, no speed limit signs, no nothing" 
>road
>despite passing three "large yellow signs warning that snow may completely
>block the roadway", a road that turned from pavement to gravel to dirt, 
>leading
>the CNN reporter to find "By the time we came to the spot they stopped, our
>four-wheel-drive vehicle was being battered on both sides by overhanging
>branches and bushes".
>
>Why didn't James Kim stop earlier, or even turn around, despite all this? 
>Value
>rigidity? Was he ignoring all these "facts" because he was someone "sure" 
>that
>he knew where he was, that he was on the "right road"?
>
>What do you think?

I suspect you're correct. It's tough to turn around on a snow covered road 
though. Once they made the wrong turn, if indeed it was a wrong turn, they 
were committed to making it through or backing up for miles and miles. A 
tough choice either way. Some simple precautions...

Thank you for your comments,

Dan