[MD] my rant

[Joseph Maurer]

On 7/17/09 5:59 AM, "X Acto" <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

Hi Ron,

I recognize the "keep on truckin"!  I want to talk about evolution as in
levels in existence. Are you interested?

Joe
> 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
> 
> 
>       
> 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/