[MD] Step One

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 5:35 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Dan:
I tend not to engage in babble, if that's what you mean.

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

Dan:
Which is all well and good. But as I tried to get across, there must
be some sense of commonality to hold a discussion, and here that
commonality is the MOQ.

>
> 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.

Dan:
Yes I know.

>
>
>> 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.

Dan:

Why would Bo deserve an apology? He was rude, insensitive, and left
the discussion of his own accord.

I never subscribed to the incessant arguing over what defines the
intellectual level. When I read LILA, I had no problem understanding
what Robert Pirsig was on about. So I don't second your vote. I am
sure someone else here will engage you though.

I attempted to draw you into a discussion centered around a few
paragraphs from ZMM but you seemed pretty well set on your own
interpretation... practice, practice, practice. Again, if that's all
it took, why aren't all music students playing at Carnigie Hall? There
seems something else missing from the equation but you don't seem
interested in pursuing what that something might be. You seemed
offended by the mention of holiness, as if someone were asking you to
kneel and pray. But much of ZMM and LILA are devoted to touching upon
the Dynamic aspects of experience that include devotion and belief in
that which is beyond intellectual desciption.

Quality... we know what it is but we can't explain what it is that we know.

>
>
>
>
>> 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.

Dan:
To surpass the teacher doesn't mean to denigrate the teacher, which is
what you do when you call Robert Pirsig "holy Bob." Why not just call
him the Great Author? Anthony McWatt and David Buchanan both are
working at surpassing Mr. Pirsig when it comes to academia and he
seems more than happy to help them in any way he can. But they don't
belittle the man by calling him names. If they did, I doubt they'd get
far at all.

>
> 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.

Dan:
It's okay to insult me, John. I just take it in and rarely give it
back. But we have nothing more to talk about either.



>
>
> 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

Me too,

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
>