[MD] Steve'n"me

[John Carl]

So back to our dialogue on Philo and MD, we find Steve going into more
detail at Wim's request:

*From:* Steve & Oxsana Marquis
(*marquis at nccn.net*<marquis at nccn.net?Subject=Re:%20MD%20Friendship>
)
*Date:* Sat Apr 09 2005 - 15:02:01 BST

Wim asks:
_______________________

It intrigues me how spontaneity being potentially static can have cost you
a
friendship and can have motivated your joining us. Can you tell me more?
_______________________

Hello Wim. This falls into the 'how much do you really want to know?'
category. I did mention it, so I owe something of an explanation.

This was a particular high quality friendship, going back some 40 years and
centered on intellectually quality. We went to the same Christian boarding
high school and had the same problems; inability to accept dogma w/o
explanation, not fitting in socially, etc. We both read Pirsig about the
same time, both had our first philosophy class from the same instructor at
the same junior college (an inspiration to us both, some teachers should be
cloned!).

And, for all these years, when we would visit, we would talk about
psychology and philosophy. Our discussion could include personal issues w/o
animosity, and we could disagree dispassionately, etc. Quite remarkable
really. I've had one other friendship like this and consider them to be
quite rare, something like the 'true' friendship described by Aristotle,
etc., for those familiar with that ideal.

A lot of our discussion centered around Pirsig; this was the common ground.
I did notice, however, as time went by, that our main focus was different,
his was society and relationship and mine was character and personal
growth.
Also, looking back, there were a lot of queues I simply decided to ignore
about other differences. I could do this easily, since I was single and he
was a family man. That all changed when I got married and moved within
close proximity.

He stopped by one day to tell me what a lousy friend I was. Come to find
out there were certain social static patterns I had been expected to meet.
The fact that I'm an introvert and fairly quite socially had been quite
satisfactory all this time, but now I was expected to change. Part of this
expected behavior was the 'spontaneous' dropping by twice a week or so and
calling. This was his behavior, and he felt put off when he dropped in out
of the blue and, since, after several occurrences, I wouldn't stop what I
was engaged in any more to completely focus on visiting. He felt my static
habits were quite low quality.

Of course, some of this is true. I am quite the planner, and love nothing
better than to be 'into' a project.

My counter charge was to ask how his 'dynamic' approach was better. Where
was the quality in his life? Well, internally. He was happy. Any changes,
any growth planned? No. Having known him for this long I pointed out many
conversations recently that showed quite clearly he was not entirely at
peace. Further (and this is what was the last straw) I saw his behavior now
as quite the same from 30 years ago. He had not consciously adapted a
dynamic quality way of living, rather he was using Pirsig's philosophy to
justify his own habitual behavior, which includes this kind of aimless
non-focused spontaneity with all sorts of what I thought were unpreferred
consequences.

We have since had several talks, including a real interesting discussion of
caring, careful, and carefree, but that has about stopped. We are
'acquaintances' for our families sake, but the core of our friendship is
gone despite some effort on both our parts to mend fences.

Several points come to mind in attempting to figure out what happened. Our
dynamic and static differences were actually beneficial, an inspiration for
change and discussion in the other, when kept at a certain distance. The
interaction of families and living close removed that distance.

I have yet to figure out why my introversion, acceptable for such a long
time, is now not. Maybe it was a burr under the saddle and I didn't notice,
but expected family socializing gave the opportunity for the point to be
made. The value my friend places on relationship was certainly clear, but
why certain rituals to achieve that goal are required was not.

I have been looking into compulsive behavior for my own sake (excessive
'static ness' I suppose) and contrariness on my friend's part to see if
there are really any standards out there that one can clearly point at. The
problem with this, of course, is society's norms are not norms at all but
either just descriptive averages or institutionalized expectations based on
the static social patters of a particular culture.

It became obvious I need more input into understanding Pirsig. Not just
that the two of us have lost the ability to hear the other, but we have had
only the books and each other's opinion for so long. We really need others
to interact with to get a better grasp of things. That's where MD comes in.

It is obvious now why I claim veneration of the dynamic can be a trap. If
we put forth some static pattern as preferable it is subject to empirical
testing and / or rational analysis. The dynamic, however, is conveniently
removed from criticism.

Tanks Wim for your interest. Also, appreciate you view on habits, both
personal and social. Makes sense.

So far I like what I see here. Sam referred to 'bickering'. I think that's
healthy. Several of Pirsig's claims are being challenged, and that seems
healthy also. I have a lot of catching up to do, a lot of reading, such as
Anthony's thesis if I figure out how to get it, and many of the group's
essays.

I am working of course, and in the middle of a remodel, not to mention
trying to find time for my daughter. So, bear with me. I cannot respond to
everyone's replies as quick as I'd like. I have stayed out of several
interesting threads just to avoid getting overwhelmed.

Live well,
Steve

-----------

The very idea of Steve describing our relationship issues on MD, I found
somewhat odd.  Perhaps the oddity was just seeing the other person's words
objectively in a forum that I found fascinating.  But the idea of working
out our differences and problems in a philosophy forum was very intriguing
to me as well.  Once I dipped into the archives and found this quote, I
thought it actually a good idea and a very encouraging sign.  For Steve was
so introverted and careful, he'd never made much of a point to me that he
considered ours, a "high quality friendship".  Mostly what I'd gotten from
him was that he didn't appreciate social obligations taking up his time, and
now that he had a wife and a daughter, I was just one straw too much for his
poor social camel's back.

So after I'd joined MD myself for some time, I dipped back into the archives
and found this and decided to take him at his word, and give it a go.
 Specifically, where he says:

"It became obvious I need more input into understanding Pirsig. Not just
that the two of us have lost the ability to hear the other, but we have had
only the books and each other's opinion for so long. We really need others
to interact with to get a better grasp of things. That's where MD comes
in."

I thought a damn good idea... After I came across it, I started to think it
through, how it would work, and whether or not it was really a good idea.

I mean, to a certain extent, it's a form of hijacking an intellectual forum
for our own social benefit.  Is that subjugating a higher pattern for a
lower?  On the surface it would appear so.

But on the other hand, if you can't use intellectual insight for good social
means, then what good are they?  I mean, what's this "pragmatism" all about
if it isn't about that - real world good?

I did propose this, but I can't find any of that in the archives.  In fact,
it appears that my contributions to MD were snipped out of the archives of
MD after August.  Which is an interesting fact of information in itself.  On
one hand, it answered my question as to whether my quest was appropriate for
MD's goals, but on the other hand, it raised a lot more questions in my
mind.  Like, who's in charge around here?  Where do I go to take my plea?
 Who is the final authority on such matters?

Hmmm indeed.

You can plainly see the need for the Further Enquiry.

Steve still lives down Sweetland Rd. from me.  I see him on occasion.  Our
children get together now and again.  His Stephanie and my Joshua.  They are
very fond of each other.  I often contemplate the possibility of their
friendship staying strong over the years, and eventually ending up in
marriage, how funny and interesting a twist that would be.  I reckon there's
always a potential for reconciliation between Steve and me.  I know he
misses our dialogue.  I certainly do.  But we are stuck.  Just like a
motorcycle mechanic staring at a sheered off bolt, I stare at his mindset
then and have no idea yet how to break through.

"It is obvious now why I claim veneration of the dynamic can be a trap. If
we put forth some static pattern as preferable it is subject to empirical
testing and / or rational analysis. The dynamic, however, is conveniently
removed from criticism."

See?  What can I do with that? He hates DQ because it's uncontrollable,
unverifiable, unmanipuable. Just like me.  To understand why, you'd have to
dig into Steve's personal history, his lonely childhood, his insane mother,
his disconnected (socially) father and all that led to the narcissism which
creates the protective shell that keeps him at a distance. And what should I
do with this?

"Further (and this is what was the last straw) I saw his behavior now
as quite the same from 30 years ago. He had not consciously adapted a
dynamic quality way of living, rather he was using Pirsig's philosophy to
justify his own habitual behavior, which includes this kind of aimless
non-focused spontaneity with all sorts of what I thought were unpreferred
consequences. "

I mean, on the one hand he criticises my dynamicism and on the other says
its become a static trap!  He accuses me of using Pirsig's philosophy to
justify my own habitual way of being, but denies the validity of my doing so
because it's "unconscious".

Outrageous!  You mean, if I do something right unconsciously, then its
invalid because I just sorta lucked into it?

This is explicable only if I make clear what Steve "thought were unprefered
consequences" means in the context of his struggles with his Russian bride
wife, and reconciling their differing value systems.  For that, I think, is
where the real problem came in.

 We shall continue inexorably onward.