[MD] Step One

[John Carl]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.



Well I'd hope I'd be sharing my own insights ON the issue at hand.  So if I
was way off base,  I would need a correction on that.  But I'm not quite
sure what you mean in past experience because... my experience on this forum
differs really, with each person that I "talk" to.  It's hard to talk to
more than one person at a time, because everybody speaks their own
language.  So really, if this is a legitimate complaint, concern or
correction, it seems to me that its something you've experienced personally
with me, and I'm not sure what you mean.  You don't converse much, dan.  Not
in my experience.

In that case, I wouldn't seem to have much choice BUT  to fall back to my
own insights, eh?

And I'm all for "peeling the onion".  If you ask me, it's usually other
people that want to leave stuff covered up with thick, dry skin.  I peel.
I'm not put off by a few tears.  Squint and deal with it, is my motto.

So like I said, it's hard to know what it is exactly you're talking about.


> 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.


Well I'm still a bit hazy, but with your last sentence, I'd disagree with
you strongly.  "Terms common to the MoQ" is such a broad brush to paint
with, you better take me on fully if you're gonna throw that one at me.  One
term at a time, if you please.  I vote we start with "intellectual level".
Do you disagree with me that "intellect" must include more than classical
intellectualism, or Bo deserves an awful big apology?  That's an MoQ term.
Let's see if we can reach agreement on that central term, and then I'll be
willing to see what other ones you have a problem with.




> 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.



Now that's an interesting observation of yours dan.  Out of that whole book
of Zen I picked up in the Library that time, the one that jumped out at me
the strongest was that the student who matches the teacher's enlightenment,
halves the teacher's virtue.  It was pointed out that it was expected for
the student to surpass the teacher, or the teacher had in great aspect,
failed.

Now, I know there is no way I'm gonna surpass this particular teacher.  Nor
even match him, much less one-up him or anything like you describe in your
ego-bound eyes.  But hey, if I could at least inspire one other person to
try, I'd have done enough to justify my calories, I figure.


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.
>
>
No.  You cannot.

Sorry for that, dan

John