[MD] Missing the Point

[Heather Perella]

gav,


     [gav]
> and i thought i was lazy with me paragraphing ;-)

     Ha, Ha, :-)

> as you said there is a lot of 'versus' going on in
> discuss and one central point of the MOQ is that it
> resolves adversarial dichotomies very well. that
> these 'versus' threads persist and don't seem to
properly
> resolve is indicative of at least one party 'missing
> the point', re: the nature and purpose of the MOQ.

     Yes, I see what your getting at with this.  I'm
not sure the Pirsig states any kind of time table in
which the nature and purpose of the MOQ to
settle/resolve dichotomies has ever been proclaimed,
but in time, give anything a long time, and I'm sure
resolutions will eventually come - things change. 
This is not a strictly MOQ proclamation.  

     [gav]
> now this isn't as much a criticism of those
> individuals involved in the discussions as it is a
> criticism of the *lack of a common understanding*
> from which we are 'sallying forth'.

     Yes, exactly.  I've discussed with Ham for long
stretches, the same with Platt.  Those that are
grounded in some kind of idea of what the MOQ is, are
always able to find common ground eventually.  This
again though is what any culture does for any society.
 The lack of common understanding has been an issue.
 
     [gav]
> we have to keep in mind that pirsig only sketched
> the MOQ out in Lila. it was just a beginning, a
> statement of first principles really. that is why i
find so
> much value in the guidebook and ant's thesis: they
add
> some more detail and depth to that sketch.

     Maybe someday I'll read both.

     [gav]
> incidentally i would be very interested to find out
> how many 'discussers' have read ant's thesis and the
> guidebook.
> in any case my suggestion of a primer is a result of
> this lack of common understanding. if people are
> still arguing over left/right politics; religion v
> mysticism... in short if people are still arguing
> from a *SOM perspective*, then discuss is going to
get
> bogged down, unnecessarily in my opinion. rather
> than *discussing* the MOQ, we are continually trying
to
> extricate it from SOMish misunderstanding.

     Yeap.  This back and forth, I believe Jos and
others have said, this and that discussion gets no
where fast.  People dig their trenches and battles
begin.  They don't see people are living and breathing
on the other side of the boundary line - surviving
even with their seemingly preposterous beliefs.  Also,
both sides seem to be missing the point that our
philosophies, our ways of thinking are expressed in
our behavior.  Our ways of life are not only in our
wake up in the morning go to work, but we think and
motivate ourselves to do according to what we find
ourselves reasoning out to be the best way for us. 
Even if our thoughts on how we wish life to be are in
flux and we struggle, we will exhibit behaviors that
push and pull others, thinking 'we' have the best way
to live life and others must follow our step.  Our
struggles will be apparent and our attitudes reflect
this in time.  Thus, the tension, the frustrations,
the seemingly personal attacks, all due to digging
ourselves in for battle, instead of moving on to What?
 What are we to move on to?  Where are we to go from
SOM to MOQ?  What does that mean?

     I really wouldn't mind a dialogue here.  I
brought up these questions, maybe they'll juggle your
experience, and bounce this back and forth.  For now,
I can't think anymore.  I need to do something.  I get
edgy when I sit too much, depending on my mood.

Thanks,
SA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com