[MD] Drama with Nicholas Maxwell

[ian glendinning]

I'll try to get the 1975 "Oui" article up on-line this evening (just
obtained a copy myself today) - actually very interesting.

Clearly to break a rule without understanding it, and it's limits,
would be very foolish - (yet another corollary of the rule itself) ;-)
As I say the last thing we need is fools breaking the rules.

Ian

On 7/31/07, Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>     [Ian]
> > The rules quip is meant to suggest that those who
> > think rules are hard and fast, are the fools.
>
>     I would say to learn and understand the rules,
> even applying them very strictly will help one
> understand 'what' boundaries can be broken.  The rules
> help with consistency, but once we understand 'what'
> the rules do for the overall event, during
> application, then these rules plus all else found in
> the event (for example what are we ruling/organizing)
> we can see how these rules interplay during the event.
>  People are not rule-bound.  Rules and organization
> will lead to different events depending upon the
> person/people involved.  People bring into an
> organization (the rules) their own character.  Rocks
> will flow downriver, larger rocks not as much as
> smaller rocks, but in a big storm the larger rocks
> that don't usually move will move possibly crushing a
> smaller rock into pieces and now those pieces are
> moving down river at a much faster rate, etc...  The
> event is dynamic.  It has static patterns involved in
> dynamic events, but the rules are changing depending
> upon all involved at the moment.
>
>
>     [Ian]
> > Wise (pragmatic) men/women understand that
> > they are really just for guidance, and bend /
> > interpret / them accordingly. (There is some debate
> about where the
> > adage originates but Doug Bader the legless air-ace
> is attributed
> > with using it - to justify flying a plane with no
> feet on the pedals.)
> > There are endless paradoxical corrolaries of the
> > "rule" as Jos spotted - like you probably wouldn't
> want fools
> > breaking the rules anyway. ie
> > breaking the rules is not in itself a sign of being
> > wise - oh no siree.
>
>    Yes, it depends on knowing the rule, and springing
> off of the rule to use the rule for a desired outcome.
>  What is structure/organization/rules channeling
> anyways?  A certain event I would say.  If the event
> is degenerating the organization and changing the
> organization away from what the organization is to
> organize, then chaos.  Now changing rules for
> generative reasons is dynamic.  We understand this.
>
>
>     [Ian]
> > I'll come back to you on the other references.
>
>     Ok.
>
>     [Ian]
> > Incidentally I'm just reading a 1975 "Oui" interview
> > with Pirsig.  In response to a question about why
> there is so much
> > argument about what is true or good he says "The
> good is not
> > something that can be captured in a little box of
> dialectic .... The
> > idea that something is rigidly true leads to an
> irretractable conflict"
>
>    Yes.  Where is this "Oui" interview by the way?
> Is it located on the internet?
>
> thanks.
>
> shade grows,
> SA
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's
> Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
> http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>