[MD] Step One

[John Carl]

mornin' Dan.

> 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.
>


john:

Don't put no money on it.  People engage when they feel like, not when we
want them too.

For instance, you seemed critical of my misuse of basic MoQ terms, but don't
seem to want to pinpoint or discuss or correct or anything constructive
about these abuses of mine.  And when I try and engage you on key concepts,
you demur, as if it was all beneath you.   As far as understanding what
Robert Pirsig was on about, I agree with you there.  I don't think he was at
all unclear or mysterious.  He's a good writer with good ideas who spent a
lot of words communicating those ideas and I don't see how people could get
so confused over them.

But I remind you, that it was your complaint that I am one of those
"confused people" so I'm just suggesting that I'm open to you pointing out
wherein my confusion lies.



> 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.



Dan, it's not like I didn't deal at all with your posting of climbing the
mountain.  I certainly shed more thought, more time and more response on
that post than anyone else did.  Not to mention that I've posted my own
snippet from ZAMM (which costs me more time than it does you since I don't
have no fancy digitized version) wherein RMP turns back from the peak of the
mountain, leading to Chris's disparagement of "you're not very brave, are
you."  And the author's response "no, but you'd be surprised at how smart I
am."

I take both passages as bookends, Dan.  Encompassing a meaning of refusing
to climb that means more than "not caring enough".  That's my take.  You can
disparage it as silly, clownish, stupid or whatever.  But I don't see how
you can disparage it as "refusing to discuss."

I just got my own viewpoint, is all.


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.
>
>
I got no beef against holiness.  I got a beef with you saying I'm not
displaying enough reverence.

No.  That's not right either.  I got no beef with your criticism.  I find it
instructive and helpful even.  But I do have a response to make to the
charge.

I Woke up this morning, thinking about something from a book I read once.  A
description of a scene,old friends meeting new, on a front porch, the late
afternoon sun shafting in over the canyon top and illuminating our hero,
sitting between old friends and new, the Deweeses and  the Sutherlands.

After a while, a note of underlying discord creeps in.  Where does it come
from?  What does it portend?  The ole' intellect kicks in and thinks about
it a bit.  It comes from a disparity of perception and a conflict of
attitudes.   The new friends have an easy-going, take-it-for-granted air
that bugs the old friends, very much.  They would like to see more reverence
expressed.  The new friends detect this and sort of compound the conflict by
exaggerating their expressions of irreverence even more, referring to our
hero with the halo on his head with epithet's of  demeaning endearment "that
joker sitting there".   The old friends know things that the new friends
don't.  There's good reason for the reverence.  Things have happened in the
past that deserve reverence.  To ignore what has happened, like it hasn't
happened would be... just crazy.

What does it portend?  It means that we are all different people, all the
time, to all the different people around us and while everybody has their
own expectations and preconceptions about their own relationships, it takes
the guy in the middle to see both sides, interpret them to each other and
bring harmony into the room with a shrug, a smile, and a story.

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.
>
>
Well, perhaps my explanation about might help you understand my supposed
"denigration" then.  I think it applies exactly, except of course my idea of
friendship is entirely a projections on my part - a creation in my own
mind.  But still, we Idealists are tricky buggers because if something is in
my mind, it's as real to me as anything else in this world.

As for McWatt and Buchanan, I which them well in their careers and
endeavors.  But Their high road is not the same as my low road.  If you
think it'd be a good idea to restrict this list to sycophants and academics,
I suggest you put the idea to Horse and see what he thinks.


> > 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.
>
>
I'll take your word for it Dan.  You're the expert, after all.

Take care,

John