[MD] MOQ Recursion

[Mary]

> Hi Mary,
> 
> Mary said:
> Ok, but levels and POVs will never make any sense in terms of SOM,
> which is what all of you are looking for, I guess.
> ...
> And I was impressed with the good job you did of describing the
> inadequacy. How can you have an inadequate understanding of that
> which you so adequately described?  What did you see yourself
> describing instead?
> ...
> No, I'm saying SOM cannot adequately describe the levels since, for
> one thing but not the only thing, it sees them as buckets.
> 
> Matt:
> Ok.  I think the "I guess" captures best the level of mutual
> understanding.  

[Mary replies]

You got it!  Yay!  "I guess" we agree?

[Matt]
After I described what I thought _your_ sense
> inadequacy looked like, and you affirmed it as correct, the next step
> would have been to engage the bit where I tried to make that sense
> of inadequacy look quaint and inadequate.  

[Mary replies]

Hey Matt, you have to realize that I'm way too lazy to go back and reread
whatever you are referring to here, so, I'm just kind of confused since I
don't remember what we were talking about. :)

"Quaint and inadequate".  Hmmm.  Yeah, I sort of like that.  I'm nothing if
not old-school these days, so I resemble that remark.  I like it!!!

Wait!  Maybe you were insulting me?  "..._your_ sense inadequacy...". 

Well, I don't see well, so I have that "sense inadequacy", but I am getting
paranoid now, so maybe you really mean I have a mental handicap "sense
inadequacy" - as in, inadequate sense?  Glad my boss doesn't agree with you.

[Matt]
But you used it in a way
> that made _me_ look like I was affirming that sense.  

[Mary replies]

Oh.  Sorry!  I think it must be some part of human nature to do whatever
mental gymnastics are required to interpret anything anybody says to us as
agreement.  Psychologists probably have a term for this.  Didn't mean to put
you in the MoQ camp rather than the Arlo camp.  I understand, but I'll bet
I'm better looking than Arlo. ;)

[Matt]  
The reason I
> can have an "inadequate understanding of that which I so adequatedly
> describe" is because a conversation conducted under mutual
> understanding requires each person to be able to adequately describe
> the other's viewpoint--thus attaining a "we are on the same page"
> (this is a position I've never reached, for example, with Mr.
> Buchanan)--but it doesn't mean you have to _affirm_ the viewpoint
> (this is what confuses Bo: he doesn't understand how I can state his
> viewpoint correctly and deny it).
> 

[Mary replies]

I have no overwhelming compulsion to "adequately describe" Arlo's viewpoint.
It's a no-brainer for me since it's the viewpoint I had for XX years before
Marsha helped me over the last hurdle to understanding the true meaning of
the MoQ.  I've spent most of my life on Arlo's "Page" and now enjoy freedom
from that page.  As to your personal problems with Mr. Buchanan, join the
club.  He won't speak to me - which is an incredible delight!  A high
Quality lack of experience equivalent to not being prayed over!

[Matt]
> To engage the bit where I don't see "intellect as inadequate" would
> be, I think, to extrapolate on your claim that Arlo or me or someone
> else is "describing in terms of SOM."  

[Mary replies]

A respectful "Duh".

[Matt]
You guess that's what we are
> looking for, but that's not how we see ourselves.  

[Mary replies]

I know.

[Matt]
So when you state
> "No, I'm saying SOM cannot adequately describe the levels," some
> of us just scratch our heads, because we didn't think we were
> saying that it could.
> 

[Mary replies]

And I used to think that too.  I understand.  Really I do.

[Matt]
> I don't have a clear view of your viewpoint.  

[Mary replies]

>From SOM it is not possible to have a clear viewpoint.  That is the problem.

[Matt]
Maybe that's partly
> because I'm not following closely all of the conversations.  But my
> comments have aimed at trying to elicit further explication of your
> viewpoint.  Perhaps I'm too far removed from the winds of
> conversation or the nexuses of power and authority for that to be
> worth it, but it strikes me that--given the heat surrounding certain
> viewpoints recently--a good strategy would be to step back from the
> engaged fight and write out a mission statement, 

[Mary replies]

OMG!  A Mission Statement"!  Really?  The IRONY!  I'm sorry.  You can't
possibly know that I have been tasked with travelling 1300 miles next week
to attend a council where we will be tasked with developing a "Quality
Culture" in my VLC (Very Large Corporation).  Even you who only understand
the MoQ Intellectually must get a little of the malaise in the pit of the
stomach at this?  I would love to elaborate, but I really need this job.
Sorry.  You will have to just imagine what happens.  I am sure I will have
no tongue by the time I get back.  It will have been well and thoroughly
bitten off by then.

Arlo, Matt, even DMB!   Help me!

Best,
Mary