[MD] Knots

[118]

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 5:19 AM, <plattholden at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Platt,


Thank you for the proposal, good idea.  I will review my posts from the
recent to back when I was posting from my aol account.  If nothing else it
may bring clarity to myself.  Much of my writing could be termed "automatic
writing".  That is, it stems from an awareness of the moment which I then
try to transcribe into words, hopefully logically, but that is up to the
interpreter.  As such, sometimes I learn something from rereading my own
posts.  Strange I know.  A summary could be analogous to Phaedrus collecting
thoughts on cards and then shuffling them continuously to make sense of
things.

In terms of Phaedrus, I also went through a temporary breakdown in the early
eighties.  It was not destructive enough for shock therapy, and I did have a
community which supported me at the time.  However, at the root of it was
serious questioning which resulted in a complete dissociation from any firm
footing in reality as I was used to.  It was all quicksand without
grounding.  The creation of certain premises that I accepted as true,
allowed rebuilding.  The notion of everything being an analogy can have
destabilizing consequences, if one is not ready for it.  However, it is in
the presentation of such analogies and their acceptance, that we coexist.
 Our coexistence is based on agreement, and such agreement has no basis
outside our own communication.  We create a world of knowledge as a result
of some Quality stimulus.  Had to be there to understand, perhaps.

Thus my insistence on lateral analogies for the expansion of the concept of
Quality.  The power of the word is somewhat limited and limiting as we know
through discussion of SOM.  If I choose, I can view the world free of SOM,
converting that to discussion is the hard part.  Just another jumble in my
head I suppose.

Cheers,
Mark

Hi Mark,
> Sorry but I missed a lot of what you say you covered. Can you  repeat your
> analogies and insights on a single page in summary form without
> compromising
> your thoughts?  Someone once said, "If you can't write your idea on the
> back of
> business card, it's not a good idea." Probably an exaggeration, but it
> forces
> an Occam approach, like Pirsig's summary of the MOQ -- "Some things are
> better
> than others."
>
> Any sort of brief summary would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks
> Platt
>
>
>
>
>