[MD] Step One

[John Carl]

Hello Dan,

Dan:
> I don't recall you trying to engage me on anything but the definition
> of the intellectual level, which we both already know.


First off, I'm glad you actually do feel you have something to discuss with
me.  Even though you said you didn't.  I'll take it as a good thing you
changed your mind.  And I hope I can make it worth your while, somehow, as
well as, obviously, mine.



> There has
> already been a huge waste of time here debating that particular
> question. And now you suggest Bo deserves an apology? What is unclear
> to you about the intellect?
>
>
John:

Well, nothing, really.  I feel like I've got a good grasp on it - a working
model which serves me well and does arise from and resonate with, the MoQ.

But I'm not sure how this model, of intellect, that I have in my head,
connects with the ideas of others.  Because there seem to be problems to me,
in the ambiguity of  the word "intellect".  For intellect as we find it in
the dictionary we all use, is SOM, no question about it.  And if a whole
level is nothing but "intellect" in the classical and exact definition of
intellect, then Bo was right about the MoQ, and his ostracism and rebuke are
a disgrace.

But if there is more to intellect than the classical definition of
intellect.  If intellect, as I claim, includes romantic aspect as well as
the classical, includes and is actually led by Art, as an intellectual
expression, then Bo merely suffered a misunderstanding that nobody could get
through his thick norwegian skull and there was no point in belaboring fixed
positions, no blood, no foul. no apologies.

So I guess, dan, to get back to your question, the issue of whether or not
Bo is owed, somewhat of an apology, depends upon the definition of
"intellect" which applies to "the intellecual level" and since those are
very basic, and yet important, MoQ terms, I proposed starting there in
response to your challenge that I needed to use MoQ terminology or orthodoxy
or whatever it was that made you itch.  To see if we have basic
understanding there.  Before moving on.

But since all you respond is, "this has already been covered" then I guess
I'll do what I always do when I get that response(usually from dmb) . I can
only   go,  "Oh. Kay."




> >
> > 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.
>
> Dan:
> Okay.
>
>

I see we are on the same page, response-wise at least.




> >
> >
> >
> >> 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."
>
> Dan:
>
> The ZMM version is available online at Henry Gurr's site and various
> other sites. A quick google will get you there. Thank you for your
> time in responding. I do appreciate it.
>
>
John:  Yeah... but there's also something about keeping it analog, that
appeals to me, in a weird way, dan.

I have to regurgitate what I've assimilated biologically, rather than
mechanically, and for the most part,  I think that's a good thing.  I'm
gonna mostly stick with it.  Aren't those the real important parts of ZAMM
and Lila?  The things that stick out so strong that I don't need a
reference?


> > 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:
> Yes I think the same thing happens in the discussion group. Some of us
> have been around a decade or more. I recall my old friend Krimel
> showing up unexpectedly with me greeting him with "asshole."


I remember that too, strong a memory as if it'd been real.  I see it playing
in my head, Krimel, getting up on a barstool, hot and thirsty after a long
ride, you sitting cool and collected in the shadows, a cold beer and a
double barrell shotgun in your lap, and you let him have it with both
barrells, the minute he sat down.  I never did quite understand why.  Maybe
I should have asked.  I guess I didn't cuz I thought it'd be gauche.
 Peekin' into somebody else's story uninvited, like.



> Now,
> someone who didn't know our history would no doubt take that greeting
> as an insult, but it wasn't meant that way at all. It was actually a
> term of endearment, if you will. I like Krimel a great deal. But he
> can be trying at times too, which is his style.
>
>
I love Krimel's style.  It's his metaphysics that seem weak to me.  But that
makes it all the more fun, in a way.  A weak metaphysics being an inadequate
foundation for debate, it's a constantly available target.  But you no doubt
see it different.  You seem to be involved on layers I'm not really playing,
dan.  As is Krimel.





> That isn't the reverence I am talking about, though. It is something
> you feel inside yourself. No one can tell you what it is. You can be
> pointed towards it, but there is a difference between being told how
> to walk, and walking. We were all too young to remember our first
> steps, but what a rush that must have been! That is the reverence I am
> pointing to.
>
>
Well... ok.  You're pointing to something insider yourself.  I get that.
 You feel a reverence for something, and you're showing it to me.  It's not
nice to clown with that.   Ever.  So ok.  There comes a time to drop one's
style, in the interest of truth and true communication.

However, one can only go so far down that path, as an individual.  In order
for there to be meaning, congruence and harmony, there must be relationship
balanced in otherness.


>
> Dan:
> I address most all my posts here as "Hello everyone" to remind myself
> that anyone could be reading. Anyone. And I have a great deal of
> respect for Robert Pirsig. He is not only a wonderful writer and a
> warm and generous human being, he went out of his way by offering the
> annotations for LILA'S CHILD when he didn't have to. And so when
> someone disrespects him, it irks me. I can't help it.
>
>
Perhaps I should title mine, "hello everyone" too, for it is also in the
back of my mind that words go out to the world.  But since I remember that
clearly anyway, and usually have somebody specific in mind with whom I'm
discussing a concept, I like to use the meaningful name.  But that's just
me.

I also have a great deal of respect for RMP.  Even though he never gave me
any annotations on anything.  He changed my life, that's for sure.  And I've
always been very glad of the changes, encouraged by the encouragement found
in good writing.  Apt, timely and to the point.

So when someone disrespects him, it irks me too.  And when somebody
misunderstands me, as disrespectful, then that irks me also.  Maybe even a
bit more, for it seems like a disrespect of me and my words, like even
though I've made it abundantly clear, time and again, how much a I respect
and appreciate the work and life of Robert M. Pirsig, that all that means
nothing, my word means nothing, and my style of flippancy and humour is used
to judge my intent.

Not my word, but my style.

That irks me, dan.  irks me a lot.




> >
> > 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.
>
> Dan:
> I don't recall ever suggesting that. I would be excluded from the
> list. I have no academic standing and probably never will. Besides, I
> don't offer suggestions to Horse... he does a fine job and needs no
> help from me.
>

Fair enough.  I'm inclusivity-oriented, myself.  I like diversity of
opinion, variety of Religions, and plurality of intellect.  And like W.
James, have a keen appreciation for society's weirdos, being one myself, and
all.

>>
> > I'll take your word for it Dan.  You're the expert, after all.
>
> Dan:
> No I am not an expert. I am just a regular guy.
>
>
Well I think of you as a bit more than that dan.  I mean, sure,  that's all
any of us are.  I don't know anybody that isn't, except regular gals, but we
all put our pants on one leg at a time.

But some people, after putting on their pants, put out good words.  And I
respect those people, more than others who put out stupid words.   Even when
the people who put out stupid words are more famous, and make lots more
money, I love and respect the men of good words, dan.  And I count you
amongst those.

 I just do.  Whether you like me or not, I just do.  And ain't nuthin' you
can do about that.

John