[MD] Step One

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:38 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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:
I enjoy humor so don't get me wrong... but there's a difference
between being humorous and being a clown. I enjoy our discussions very
much. Yet there are times when we have to peel back the onion (so to
speak) to get at a deeper meaning to the MOQ. And I tend to get the
impression that you're not so much interested in doing that as you
are... how do I put it... falling back to your own insights rather
than focusing on the discussion at hand. And I know we've been over
this before and it didn't go so well. I don't mean to say that I don't
want your insights. But I would prefer that you presented  them in
terms common to the MOQ. That way the discussion could move forward.
Sometimes I get the impression that you are looking to one-up Robert
Pirsig rather than understand what he is saying. And of course he can
be wrong. But still, it seems better to develop an understanding of
the MOQ first, which I cannot see that you have done.

>
>
>> 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.

Dan:
That's fine. But it's also only so much b.s.

>
>
>
>
>>   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?

Dan:
Well, you are the one who clowns around. I don't care for that. So
yes, the discussion won't go far. I don't mean to criticize you one
way or the other. I only offer a possible solution to the impasse that
we seem to come to time and again.

>
> 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.

Dan:
This discussion is centered around the MOQ. I write stories myself and
share them from time to time with the group but it is my hope that
others may see the value there and how it pertains to the MOQ. I am
not an autobiographer. And I realize someone reading my stories may
not understand that, just as someone reading Robert Pirsig's writings
may take a lot of what he writes as truth. I recall Mary getting upset
that he would have an affair with a bar lady while he was still
married. And yet he told me himself that he was Lila, and the boat,
and the rest of the story as well. That's what I am driving at. You
are the story. How does your life pertain the MOQ.  You. Not the
people or places in your life. Do you see what I mean? I know I am
explaining myself poorly but it is a difficult subject.

>
> 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:

I don't believe in hero-worship. Still, I don't believe it is right to
disrespect people either. But that's just me. It is how my father
raised me.

>
>
>
>  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.

Dan:

I am not sure what you mean by 'shortcut intellectualizations of
deeper meanings.' But let me try and tell you where I am coming from
and why I quoted that bit from ZMM on holiness. Take my work on LILA'S
CHILD as an example. Despite Marsha's sarcasm, I don't think anyone
who has not been through such an experience can appreciate the deeper
meaning of setting a goal so high that it is impossible to acheive and
then going ahead and acheiving it. Like Phaedrus and his holy quest...
he looked at it as an opportunity for personal growth and experience.
But that's not what it is about. The holy quest is about giving
oneself up entirely to something you neither understand nor know the
outcome. It is like Carlos Castenada jumping into the abyss so dark
and deep, having to gather the totality of himself without even
knowing what that is, and just letting go.

There are no shortcuts to such an experience and one never knows when
such an opportunity will arise. Thinking about it only takes one
further away, not closer. So we seem to disagree on a very fundamental
level when it comes it holiness, which a person find a bit surprising
knowing you are the more religious of the two of us. But the holiness
that I speak of has nothing to do with religion. Perhaps it is like
reading about zen and practicing zen... something along those lines.
It seems many contributors here are well-read when it comes to Eastern
philosophy but few actually put that knowledge into practice. Zen
isn't something a person can read about. It just isn't. I don't care
how many books a person reads, they will never know about zen in an
intellectual 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.

Dan:
Now see, you don't get it. It wasn't that he didn't care. He did. He
just didn't care in the right way. That kind of caring isn't something
one thinks about. One feels it deep down, as if life itself depended
on it.

>
> 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?

Dan:
That I cannot answer for you. You have to answer that for yourself.

>
> 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:
Life is a holy journey. That is what the pilgrimages are all about. No
one has to write about it or think about it or be told about it. And
of course no one knows what is going to happen in advance. That is our
Western way. The sun rises every day.

>
>
>
>>  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.

Dan:
No. Ego-climbing is personal gain. It is me, me, me.

>
> 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?

Dan:
Exactly. But one doesn't have to tell anyone anything when it comes to
reverence. That is beyond social and intellectual values into Dynamic
realms.

>
> 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.

Dan:
As I said, there ain't no school and no one is giving out any grades.

>
>
> 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.

Dan:
I would have to read more than just a few quotes, of course, and that
type of reading doesn't interest me at all. I'd never get through it
though. I am not a philosopher nor do I read it... unless I have
trouble sleeping, then it helps lull me.

>
> 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.

Dan:

Well, sure. In a certain context, I agree. But the story has to have
some value, some meaning. Otherwise it is just so much clowning around
and the joke is on you... in my opinion, of course,

Thank you,

Dan

>
> John
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>