[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Andre, Andrie, dmb,
    Hello.

In all seriousness, if you all don't pay attention to my posts I will
consider it MY loss!  The most selfish thing I can hope for is that
everyone figures shit out and behaves morally.  If I am lost, hook a
brother up!!!  My understanding is that Phaedrus's point was that there
is a real thing (I may use the term 'objectively real' as is my habit:
if I can refrain from doing so are we all good?): morality.  Isn't this
the starting point for the MoQ?  Am I spouting drivel here, or does the
drivel start after this?

Please see below:

> 
> > dmb asks:
> >
> >
> > What in the world is going on around here? Am I just having a nightmare or
> > is this really happening?
> >
> > Andre:
> > This is really happening dmb! What absolute drivel this Tim character
> > produces. And he is not the only one. I have not followed his posts but was
> > only drawn to it via your reaction. Problem is, at present, that these
> > 'drivelers' now want nice summaries, clear definitions, and an exposition of
> > the basic tenets of the MOQ in response to observations that they lack a
> > basic understanding of it when you confront them with their drivel.

Shouldn't you confront me with my drivel at least once before you level
such a claim?  If you are the absolute authority on reality, please hook
me up.  I am merely stating things as best I can (in the highest quality
way I can) and ...  And Please recall Pirsig's own caveats about this
whole metaphysics of quality thing.  On the other hand, if you are not
the absolute authority on reality, perhaps by helping me work through my
drivelly understanding you will better yourselves.

> > To what extent do you take these posts seriously? Should you, to use
> > Bodvar's metaphor, run around trying to plug every leak in the dike? (and
> > don't say you miss him Marsha!)

Why would you work on the parts that aren't leaking (or about to leak,
etc.)?

> > I am by no means an expert on the MOQ. We all try our best. I have worked
> > pretty hard to at least get the basics right.

Thank you!  But can I ask, seriously, what are you doing here?  I am
new; I have just read the books and I wanted to talk about them, so I
was stoked to find this site.  I wanted to get some other perspective on
them.  I wanted to work some things out.  I even wanted to offer my
perspective.  Etc.  But your response seems very much like a dogmatic
and IMMOBILE adherent of some religion.  Look at what you write next!

 It has been suggested before
> > and it won't hurt to have it repeated: if you want to get into the MOQ you
> > have to work for it and at it. Contrary to what Platt says in his latest
> > post, you have to want Quality to come in.

I am reminded of all the times I have heard people tell me, or someone
else, "just invite Jesus in".  The sentence structure, the logic, are
identical.

 It will not 'just' happen to most
> > of us. Must of us still hear the truth knocking at the door and we tell it
> > to piss off because we are looking for the truth.

There is even a part in the bible where Jesus is supposed to have said
something like, I stand at the door and knock, whoever hears and answers
will...

> > Getting out of this SOM straight jacket is not easy. As a matter of fact it
> > is very hard. All one can do is try and use ZMM and LILA as a guide.
> >
> > Quality every 6-year old knows. The MOQ is different and much more
> > difficult but alas reading some posts you'd think they are written by 6-year
> > olds.

Thanks.  I will take this as very complimentary.  The 6 year old knows
quality because he hasn't been bogged down with inadequate static
structure.

> > Where to start?

Somewhere!  Pick the single thing that seems to be the lowest quality
drivel I have spouted and run with it.

> >
> > It is with regret that I must confess that I have started to simply ignore
> > some people's posts.
> >
> >

I sincerely hope that you don't just write me off without a single
effort!

On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 22:13:30 +0100, "ADRIE KINTZIGER"
<parser666 at gmail.com> said:
> I agree, Andre, and also with DMB, it's total drivel.
> This will kill every progress made earlier on.
> Adrie "attention"- comes from 'island' (huxley)
> we should pay attention. (birds voice)
> greetz, Adrie
> 

Andrie,
I have amply warned, I think, that I feel that this 'progress' of which
you speak is illusory; it is a descent into the abyss rather than the
summitting of a peak in the high country.  Maybe we are speaking of
different things though.  If this analysis of levels, and the more
complicated conclusions of Phaedrus are right, shouldn't we be able to
know this intellectually.  As it seems to me, the levels are postulates,
and I don't see that Phaerus would have offered them up unless they were
to help you get out!  IF they are to help you get in, shouldn't we be
able to derive them from first principles?  this would seem an
intelligent endeavor.  but taking them as the foundation for the
intellectual endeavor seems futile and dangerous.  It is to put our
trust in Phaedrus the prophet, and to follow him as dogmatic and
immobile servants of his god.  No?

I thank you and hope to hear from you,
Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Email service worth paying for. Try it for free