[MD] Step One

[John Carl]

Hello Everyone,

Dan:
>
> Quite possible. But if your style is being a clown, then we have very
> little to discuss. I tend to suffer fools poorly... that's my style.
>
>
Understood.  I've been certainly told many times in my life, "we have very
little to discuss" and I've believed it every time.  Takes two to tango and
some people aren't comfortable with my steps, rhythm or style.  No problem.


> Dan:
> No candles needed but a bit of reverence doesn't hurt.
>
>
I take everything seriously, nothing is sacred; I take nothing seriously,
everything is sacred.  Trite, but true.




>   Climbing the mountain is tough enough.
> >  Bearing great burdens will not help me climb.
>
> Dan:
> I guess that is where we differ. If as you say you're taking a serious
> risk, then it seems to me it might behoove you to take thngs a bit
> more seriously. Write like it's the last thing you will ever do, for
> it just might be. Anything less is just cheating yourself, in my
> opinion, of course.
>


I appreciate your sharing your opinion, Dan.  Always.  Although, if as you
say, "we have little to discuss" because you don't like my style, it's hard
to figure out how any constructive criticism about my style can occur.  For
constructive criticism you need an open mind, right?

And I still don't quite get how anything like I've done, written,
communicated, expressed - could be construed as anything BUT serious when
I'm carving out part of my life, from a whole list of obligations and
committments, to empty myself of everything but devotion to this one task.
If that's not serious, then I have no idea what you mean by the term.

On the other hand, if you mean by irreverential, and you're talking about my
attitude toward holy bob, or whatever, then... got an askance glance at you
out of the corner of my eye, a sad shaking of the head and a slow saunter
away.  I got my standards too, and neither do I suffer fools or foolishness
without comment.

Well, sometimes I do.  When it seems like a good idea.



 Dan:
> Phaedrus cared enough to take a holy journey but he didn't care enough
> to realize what it was he was undertaking. That is my point, for what
> it's worth.
>
>

I'm not so sure I completely agree with you (and him).  I mean, I know it
sounds silly to argue with the guy's own words on paper, but there are
shortcut intellectualizations of deeper meanings that we can't or don't have
time to express, in all we do.  And giving up on the mountain has many, many
roots in the decision process.  For instance, some people spend their whole
lives dwelling in the alluvial plains and save up all their rupees for just
once an opportunity to look down on their own existence.  they value
climbing the mountain in one way.

But to an old cowboy from the continental divide?  Maybe not so much.
Maybe, been there, done that, know what the view is from the top.  A lot of
small ponderings go into any question of why we value or choose what we do.


And for Phaerus in that time, the feeling of dislocation, the differing
social and cultural supports produce a depressive state - the opposite of
"the home team advantage" and you sudden just don't care about climbing
anymore.  Heck, happens to all of us.

And some people stop climbing,  because the same value to be found at the
top of the mountain, can be found in the heart of the moment - no effort
needed.  So why climb?

What I'm saying is, there are lots of ways of "caring" that mattered more
than the many anonymous pilgrimages that have gone on for centuries and made
it back to the bottom, and died, and never wrote anything.  Caring enough to
take a holy journey, means you don't always know in advance where it's gonna
end, or what detours its gonna take.  That is my point, for what it is
worth.



>  Dan:
> Maybe we are speaking past one another. In the quote above, there are
> 4 'I's' and 2 'me's' so I suspect your hero is ego-climbing too. But
> who knows?
>
>
Hmmm... ego climbing.  There is a sense in which "ego-climbing" could be
said to be whole enchilada.  The evolution of consciousness from and into
the cosmos, assimilating patterns infinitely - an expanding self, the ego-
climbing to allness of being.

Yeah, I can see how that could be a good thing.  But what comes with the
connotation is social competition - like I'm higher than you so neener,
neener, neener.  I'm more selfless than you are.  Sometimes, what is there
to do but laugh?

I'd prefer to think of our endeavors as a good thing.  An evolving
understanding of ourselves and our world, where our ego-climb is also
boosting those around us.  Not stomping on heads or fingers, but just like
real serious mountain climbing - roping and pitons and belays and teamwork.


But hey, that's me, mr. idealist.



> Dan:
> No. As he states, he is being logically foolish.
>
>
I think he's being logically rigorous about the way logic is a foolishness
that magically produces meaning, like a rabbit from a hat.  But admittedly,
my background is different, having read a great deal of him.  But it comes
in handy as a logical defense of foolishness, which I seriously thought I
might need but it's hard to say where this is going.

Of course I am not sure... it was merely an observation. No need to
> fall on your knife or anything.
>
>
Well I'm pretty sure its not going there!



>
> Dan:
> Coyote the trickster often ends up tricking only himself, or so I
> understand.
>
>
dude, you nailed it.  so many times and in oh so many different ways...  but
as long as it makes a good story, it's all worth it.  Chuckle and you rhyme
with the cosmic joke.

John