[MD] Step One

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:58 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Dan:

dictionary.com:

in·tel·lect   /ˈɪntlˌɛkt/  Show Spelled
[in-tl-ekt]  Show IPA

–noun

1. the power or faculty of the mind by which one knows or understands,
as distinguished from that by which one feels and that by which one
wills; the understanding; the faculty of thinking and acquiring
knowledge.
2. capacity for thinking and acquiring knowledge, esp. of a high or
complex order; mental capacity.
3. a particular mind or intelligence, esp. of a high order.
4. a person possessing a great capacity for thought and knowledge.
5. minds collectively, as of a number of persons or the persons themselves.

Where does it say anything about subject/object metaphysics?

And for the record, Bo was NOT ostracized or rebuked for a dozen years
or more. But for Christ's sake, when is enough enough? We couldn't
hold a proper discussion without Bo barging in, claiming what idiots
we all were for not seeing the intellect as SOM. Go back and read the
archives if you don't believe me. And again, he left the discussion of
his own accord. No one banned him.

>
> 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.

Dan:

The intellectual level is just thinking, plain and simple. You know that, John.

>
> 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."

Dan:

Well, David Buchanan and me go way back too. I think we both joined
the old Lila Squad discussion group around the same time in 1998. I
value his input highly. So it puzzles me when you disparage him the
way you do. I suppose it must be something about his style that
bothers you.

>
>
>
>
>> >
>> > 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.

Dan:
I still have the books on my shelves too but I find the digitized
versions extremely helpful for searching, copy and pasting, and for
annotating. Over the years, I have collected most all Pirsig-related
works in digitized form, which saves me a lot of typing should I care
to share a quote.

>
> 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?

Dan:
Yes, I suppose. But with the digitized versions I can zoom in which I
cannot do with a book. And as I grow older, I find my eyes don't do as
well with some font types as others, and reading glasses tend to make
me dizzy. Getting old is a pain in the ass but what alternative is
there?

>
>
>> > 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.

Dan:

It has to do with our shared history, as I explained. Again, if you go
back into the archives, you might find my retort to Krimel was rather
mild compared to some of his comments to me. But that is all water
under the bridge, so to speak.

>
>
>
>> 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.

Dan:
Krimel is very intelligent and offers well-thought out quality posts.
We don't see eye to eye on some matters but that is good.

>
>
>
>
>
>> 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:

It is not just something inside of me. It is inside us all. There is
only consciousness.

>
>
>>
>> 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.

Dan:

As I said, I find it helpful to remind myself that there are many here
who rarely contribute yet read all the posts. I don't know the actual
numbers but i would guess at any time there are 10 to 1 when it comes
to  lurkers vs. actual contributors. I lurk for long periods of time
myself, sometimes for years.

>
> 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.

Dan:
I don't look at it as him giving the annotations to me... he gave them
to us all. I was merely the conduit through which we all were talking.

>
> 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.

Dan:
Okay, I understand.

>
>
>
>
>> >
>> > 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.

Dan:
There are very few places where a person can find a half-way
intelligent conversation and this is one of them. It is basically an
open forum until someone abuses that privilege. I see Ham worrying
himself that he will be censored but that will never happen as long as
he plays by the rules, even loosely... at least historically that has
been the case.

>
>>>
>> > 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.

Dan:
Well, thank you John. That is gratifying to hear. But as I say, I am
no expert nor would I ever pretend to be. Others can claim that
status; it's okay with me. I just write. That's all. And it pleases me
when someone finds some value there.

And don't let my harsh words lead to to believe that I don't value our
interactions. I like you very much and value our friendship. What is
that old saying... we hurt most those we love...

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
>