[MD] my rant

[X Acto]

Bo:
Not until Robert Pirsig. I came 
across "Zen and the Art .." in 1978 and it turned my tables. Phaedrus 
seemed even more oppressed than myself, but more capable of 
challenging it,  as said I believed it was the way existence was 
"prefabricated". I need not repeat my first reading but even writing 
about it some thirty years later it moves me. 

Ron:
"I need not repeat my first reading" which was 30yrs ago.

Bo, I have gone through at least 4 revisions of thought since
first reading Zen and the Art. and as many with Lila and
at the moment I am in the middle of yet another illumenation.
with the re-reading of the material.
Each time, it was after filling in the bacround information that Pirsig
mentions in his books. First it was Hume and Kant and Descarte
then I re-read and what Pirsig wrote took on a new meaning
 I discussed it with my mentor at the time,
thought I had it, grasped all of it with out a doubt. Years later
I read Lila and it confused me, I re read Zen and chalked up
Lila as a re-hash. Put it down and continued with my opinion
of all of it, feeling I had it already.
Years went by read Lila again and it left me with questions
found the discuss, and I could'nt reason beyond the s/o distinction
I thought Pirsig was an idealist at that point and a sloppy philosopher
who did'nt really consider all the angles. I thought I had it figured out.

Began filling in my backround understanding
with a study of the history of philosophy, my list of reading grew
starting with "man is the measure" by Reuben Abel which broadened
my understanding and the appreciation of the problem. I saw
my thinking was incorrect and needed revision. I read Lila again
and understood more but not all. There were still contradictions
and unclear meanings. I battled on the discuss, learned more
and more revisions, delved into James, Whitehead, Nietchze, Dewey.
Read Joseph Campbell.
Entered into formal logic by inspiration from Ham studied axiom
and grammar read Wittgenstein, went back to James and a host of others
the list being too long to mention, studied  buddhism and the tetralemma,
Studied Quantum physics and physical theory.
studied the history of civilisation, Alexander the great, Aristotle and the ancient
pre-Socratics, Parmanides, Xenophanes, Heraticlus, Aniximander.
Re-read Hume, Descarte, Kant found new meaning, re-read James
found new meaning. Read the stoics, re-read James re-read the buddhist
scriptures, re-read the new testament, re read the old testament. read
Greek mythos. The Socratic dialogs, re- reading Lila........
contradictions are made clear, styles and concepts understood,.. new meaning.
DMB's words have new meaning, Dan Glovers words have new meaning
Anthony's words have new meaning. Your words have new meaning.
your tea has been swishing for 30yrs Bo, I like the sampler. I try something
new all the time. I chase my intrests of course, but in the chasing found myself 
embracing ideas formally hostile to my own convictions. The conflict I had
with Arlo about self, enlightened me, other conflicts and reasearch to 
prove my points left me changing my views.
Even now with the new clarity and understanding, with the conflicts and
contradictions resolved in my re-reading of Lila I still do not have
the absolute conviction in opinion that others demonstrate here.

I see now that some embrace the static patterns they grew up with
and formed their sense of identity on. On victorian social values
on anti-victorian intellectual values and anti-intellectual anti social
values. They embrace them because they are safe with them they
feel right, they justify their own metaphysical view and support
their private prejudices. Why change that? they shape their understanding
of MoQ to fit those prejudices, lending creedance to them. They see what
they want to see , what they need to see,  and are blind to or
ignore the rest, as I myself have done in the past. I am aware of this now,
I try to force myself to address the stuff I'm not interested in pursuing
read the parts I don't feel like reading, examine it, study it. Take the opposing
view point and try to understand it from the inside out. I've been through a 20yr
process of revision and still revising. All in the effort to understand
the work of Robert Maynard Pirsig.
What has been your progression in the last 30? the last 15? 10?
what books have you read? It's hard to believe that you base all your
convictions on one reading of over 30yrs ago. That you would be so
arrogant and assumptive. Yet Marsha takes your view because it
supports her anti-social/anti-intellectual interpretation
it allows her to keep her prejudices it allows her to be free whimsical
and contradictory yet still despise male dominated society and intellect.
It allows her to keep all her hates and support all her likes and be secure in those views
as an MoQer and a champion of indefinable DQ. It allows you to be a pompous
self interested wind bag that camps on one new concept he had 30yrs ago.
It allows Platt to be an anti-intellectual reactionary neovictorian and I'm sure
each one of you in your defense mechanism will cast me as thinking that I am
better than you and above reproach that I am the one clinging to SOM.

Yea, Ron, YOU got it all figured out dontcha buddy, your sooo smart arent cha?
whattever you say Ron. You mental midget, you aggresive male bent on killing
DQ, you liberal academic collectivist. 

keep on truckin