[MD] Changes in 2011

Tue Jan 4 07:18:12 PST 2011

re.
Parasitism.

In reflection of mary's mail

"Quote"
John Carl is one of the most dynamic posters I've ever seen.  I always look
forward to reading a "ridgecoyote"!   But I fear he's on the hit list along
with Marsha, Platt, and me.  He's run afoul of the orthodoxy a few too many
times, and even though he doesn't necessarily agree with the "misfits"
either, that's ok.  Always has been with me.

Nobody can control the message.  The minute those books had a publisher and
a copyright notice, they entered the public domain.   No matter how hard me
or anyone else here tries to shape the dialog, there will always be one more
person who comes along with the same questions.  A "new" misfit.  I don't
wonder why that is, I just wonder at some thinking they can control the
message by brute force.  Are you here as a terrorist?  You, with your
subversive ideas?  What about the next person?  And the next?  They just
keep coming.  Like ants.  The only way to stop subversive idea terrorists
like you, and Marsha, and me, is to counter their questions in a
satisfactory manner.  It's pretty simple really.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIE

The best parasites are in total harmony with their host.
This is in their intrest.
Only if there is harmony in the symbiosis, ...the parasite can survive
on the long haul.

Tapeworms for instance, are of the best known survivors, they eat and move
in a decent way, without annoying the host to shit them out or remove them
by
means of medication.
Stupid as they appear, they managed to survive millions of years.

Some more vicious parasites, however,..;mostly tropical ones,kill their host
, or make him sick to soon,or too severe.
These are parasites with a fast lifecycle, shortlivers, fastburners.

So for a nice analogy)-
This list and the product is and are the host, and we are the parasites,the
readers,not the writers.
It is in our interest to maintain a perfect balance in the symbiosis,not to
make the host sick, or declare him dead, and treat him as such.

Good tapeworms know their place.

Parasitism in the second degree,-is when the parasite himself is infected
with another superparasite, capable of surviving within the parasite.
This is called superparasitism, or parasitism in the second degree.
I will leave parasitism in the third degree for what it is.

And for a good analogy,...reciting Bo's name,by a parasite, infected with
anoter parasite,is a bad idea, .....The host is sick. Infected with infected
parasites.

For your convienience,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism

pay attention to broodparasitism,Hyperparasitism,etc....Ol' Backflippin'
Pirsig
is infected!

2011/1/4 Mary <marysonthego at gmail.com>

> Hello Tim!
>
> What an impressive post!  Your sincerity rings true.  Thank you.  I feel
> moved to respond in kind.
>
> [Tim]
> The over-riding question: what progress?
> The second question: and how is Marsha the Dam preventing it?
>
> [Mary replies]
> Many who are here have been here for a long, long time.  As a drop-out and
> re-join, I guess I could be considered one of them.  Though none would
> admit
> it, what we are really having here is a never-ending religious debate.
>  It's
> all about what we believe, and we are cemented into one position or another
> to the point where "progress" only occurs when you score points or win an
> argument.   Part of the problem is as you say below - we see each other as
> e-people.  It's ok to hurt an e-person.  He or she is not real.
>
> Many people over the years have joined only to leave shortly.  We'll never
> know what they might have contributed.  This is our loss, not theirs.  In a
> post not long ago I was struck by the guy (don't ask me for a name) who
> said
> he was drawn to the debate but hated posting here.  Another went so far as
> to explain exactly why he was resigning from the group - to no effect.   I
> think I know what troubled each of them.  It's the jackals.  There's an
> orthodox group here, and woe to those who don't buy-in with appropriate
> fervor.
>
> John Carl is one of the most dynamic posters I've ever seen.  I always look
> forward to reading a "ridgecoyote"!   But I fear he's on the hit list along
> with Marsha, Platt, and me.  He's run afoul of the orthodoxy a few too many
> times, and even though he doesn't necessarily agree with the "misfits"
> either, that's ok.  Always has been with me.
>
> Nobody can control the message.  The minute those books had a publisher and
> a copyright notice, they entered the public domain.   No matter how hard me
> or anyone else here tries to shape the dialog, there will always be one
> more
> person who comes along with the same questions.  A "new" misfit.  I don't
> wonder why that is, I just wonder at some thinking they can control the
> message by brute force.  Are you here as a terrorist?  You, with your
> subversive ideas?  What about the next person?  And the next?  They just
> keep coming.  Like ants.  The only way to stop subversive idea terrorists
> like you, and Marsha, and me, is to counter their questions in a
> satisfactory manner.  It's pretty simple really.
>
> Just for the record, I looked up Marsha's original post, the one where she
> explained her definition of "reification".  It may not fit Webster's, but
> she did get it from an impeccable source nonetheless:
>
> Reification is taking something that is true relative to ourselves and
> believing it to be true independently of ourselves."
>    (Wallace, B. Alan, Buddhism with an Attitude, p.138)
>
> Best wishes to you,
> Mary the terrorist ;)
>
> [Tim - all the rest of the way down...]
> Ian, I sympathize with your - I'll say 'unpatterned' - desire for
> 'progress'
> (read 'unspecified' if this sounds offensive or intentionally provocative,
> or whatever else - in any way).  But, ultimately, this progress is into the
> UNKNOWN, so it seems exceedingly foolish to sacrifice tools or people
> unless
> it is unavoidable - for whatever reason.  Of course we think we can say a
> lot about this UNKNOWN, so maybe it is more like the UNknown...  Ian, there
> is a reason I fit in amongst the misfits, and not amongst the 'fits'!  I
> think that the 'fits' are missing more than they can recognize in this
> endeavor (this endeavor being Quality-life --- rather, Moral-life).  And,
> being ignorant of this aspect, and I might even say that I suspect that
> they
> are repulsed by it: the 'faith-y' part; the love-y part; the part for which
> the intellect is to aim, but which AIM seems to transcend the intellect...
> Anyway, I think that this is the qUALUITY I find, and which I find so
> endearing, amongst the misfits, but which is atrophied to a great extent
> amongst the 'fits'.  Marsha was pretty top notch in this (I say 'was', but
> I
> don't know, perhaps she will be back)!  If Marsha does not return, I think
> you've lost a great deal of the Quality that I found in this forum.
>
>
> Ian, I would give you my thoughts of you if I could.  I'm sorry, I haven't
> followed you very closely.  I do know that I have a vague recollection of
> some impressive comments from you here and there.  So, as contrast, I guess
> I have to look to dmb.  I haven't interacted with him, and I haven't
> followed his posts too closely either, but he has given a lot, so I have
> some opinion.  Further, since there is so much support of him on the side
> of
> the 'fits', and he seems to relish this central role, perhaps it is
> fitting.
> I have spent way less time and effort in the details of Pirsig's
> metaphysics, still, I think I can make a meaningful evaluation.  I have
> given this, at least twice, before.
> dmb seems to deserve the accolades and recognition he gets.  From the
> rational part of the intellectual level, I think his grasp of the MoQ seems
> to put him in the position of RMP in absentia.  Of course I haven't gotten
> into it with him, so perhaps this is premature.  Even so, what progress?
> What is the AIM?  Am I such a fool to think that it is frustration over the
> aimlessness inherent in a purely rational, intellectual level,
> comprehension, which has led to this scapegoating of Marsha?  How can such
> a
> pleasant lady be holding back your progress?
> Ignore her and go about your business.
>
> Not too long ago there was a bit of an exchange about predictions of where
> RMP's work would find its life in the future.  I think Platt predicted art
> departments.  I think Matt predicted ...  dang, I don't want to commit
> myself to my memory at the moment, ...  anyway, when I first came here, I
> jumped right in, I don't remember how well I expressed it then, but, my
> position is that RMP, if he is to be remembered, will be remembered it
> light
> of religion/theology.  Quality = Morality.  Again, I think that RMP was
> rejected because his efforts were to convert the heathen.  In ZAMM he
> admits
> to messianic thoughts when he was in the heart of his ... story.  In 'Lila'
> he makes this equality, Quality = Morality, explicit.  I continue to see
> his
> efforts, and his metaphysics, as an attempt to eliminate the unnecessary
> and
> irrational aspects of ossified religions, but to introduce this
> bare-religion, and not just to introduce it, but to make it the foundation,
> of social and intellectual life.
>
> RMP, as I read him, basically said, unless Morality is the root of life...
> progress...  well, progress not centered on Morality is not progress he was
> going to endorse.
>
> So, what progress?  And how was Marsha the problem?
>
> $$$
>
> I was not aware that Bo's leaving was so recent.  Horse gave a link to
> something about mid August, and I went back to have a look.  I have been
> looking over the progression of the Forum since then, not in too great a
> detail though.  So, I have a bit of an understanding of what was going on
> leading up to my joining (but I haven't yet looked into Bo's position).
>
> There is one thing that I think is a fine example of the difference in
> perspective.  John had shared some stuff about his personal life: a battle
> about his home/property, separating with Lu, and something for which I'm
> not
> sure I found sufficient detail - about the loss of a daughter (John, I
> didn't know, I don't know what to say... thanks for sharing).
> Lots of people reached out in different ways, and I don't think that I
> followed it closely enough to really gauge how John took it all, but I do
> think that I understand him right when he scoffed at the idea of being
> ashamed, and when he willingly accepted the moniker 'white trash'.
>  Recently John has also said, one man's garbage is another's...  Anyway, it
> will come as little surprise that my suggestion here is that John was
> exhibiting a highly developed moral sense, and that such behavior is
> exemplary of someone with an AIM, and someone who knows how to go about
> progressing towards his AIM.
>
> dmb, in this line I think I can give an example of your behavior that might
> suggest that you are not too too far from agreeing with me.  In this
> conversation you were having with Matt and Steve recently, I think to
> Steve,
> you had expressed some 'frustration' (in an aside), and he replied with
> something like, "what is the point of expressing that."
> You defended yourself. ---  But, on the other end!  Whoa.  This touchy
> feely, lovey dovey, emotive, superficially a-rational, part of your selves
> finds its way out.  Marsha takes heat for a comment like, "I miss Bo.";
> such
> a comment is unacceptable.  But all the emotive releases against her, all
> the name calling, and all the juvenile bullying, are fine; they are manly,
> eh?  They don't disturb the conversation?  They don't illicit comments from
> the 'fits', 'what is the point..."
>
> I don't know what the interpretation of the MoQ that comes from the
> 'pirsigians' (as Ham calls you) has to say about the method of
> communication
> I might call sentiment.  John and I, at least, agree that this is an
> intellectual level endeavor (and we have used the word 'heart' before).
> Works of art, music, communicate via sentiment (I am kind of an idiot here
> so I don't mean to bound it up), and both logic and sentiment are important
> aspects in the faithful decision process.
> This faithful decision process, in short, is the one used in choosing (and
> finding first) AIMS.  And, to be sure, this is mainly in-the-moment, small,
> every-day decisions.  Decisions with way less consequence than the
> trouncing
> of Marsha from this forum.
>
> $$$
>
> Now, about the forum.  I have been here but a short time, but this may mean
> that my perspective is particularly valuable in this case, since I don't
> have the baggage of the past impinging on my e-valuation (hahaha, funny
> term, since you are all just e-people to me).  But, given that 'progress'
> doesn't seem to happen, this forum has been very pleasant otherwise (and
> this lack of progress seems to me ubiquitous in contemporary life).  It
> has,
> seemingly naturally, worked itself in to a manageable size; size is not the
> problem that has caused Marsha to be jettisoned.  There is a diversity of
> perspective.  People are self-controlled - more or less.  Etc. And etc.
>
> Ian, Horse, I just don't see any reason why any action needed to be taken
> against Marsha.  Even if you disagree with my belief that Marsha is a
> definite benefit to the forum, I don't see how you can think that she needs
> to be shut up in order for the forum to work well for you.  I don't see how
> you think progress will be easier for you if she isn't butting in.  You
> know
> that people can ignore her if they want; you also know that they do not
> want!  People engage Marsha, benefit from her highly rational and
> intellectual defense, and then, once they have, again, concluded that they
> are happier with the leap of faith they have made, and that they are not
> converted to Marshaism, they utter some names, make fun of her defense,
> which they benefited from a good deal, and they account everything she gave
> them, which she gave for free, as naught.  IF she really offered them
> naught, and if it were really years of repetition, people would ignore her!
> They don't!!!  Is it pure altruism that motivates them to keep engaging
> her?
> Then let them give up converting her.  Or let them learn to live with the
> fact that they have not succeeded.  Still, why can't she be tolerated
> amongst those who want to engage her?  IS she a threat?  I don't get it.
> The forum is working well.  I don't see a problem that needs fixing or
> intervention.
> If anything, I think that Marsha
> shows that the direction of progress is in a direction that the
> 'pirsigians'
> do not want it to be.  progress is to be had, not so much in the realm
> where
> dmb is very well qualified - the rational - but in the repugnant realm of
> faithe, love, patience, ... Morality.  Progress is to be had in the area of
> real human social interaction, where sentiment is a valuable tool of
> communication, and where an autistic (Mark, by the way, I ran across
> another
> post of yours regarding autism, and I just want to acknowledge that your
> idea about autism being an attempt at evolution is really interesting; I'm
> taking it under advisement) child might even be as well equipped as RMP
> himself.  To be sure, RMP did admit that he struggled with social
> interaction.  To be sure, RMP did admit that the intellectual endeavor of
> playing with metaphysics was 'degenerate'.
>
> Again, when I came here I had the idea that RMP put together his
> metaphysics
> to show such intellectual degenerates that they were stuck in a degenerate
> lifestyle.  I suggested that his main AIM was to get people to find their
> way out, rather than to get them further in.  I am becoming more and more
> firm in that reading.  Metaphysics is a degenerate behavior; though, to be
> sure, degeneracy is okay, morally, at least at times.  The point of the MoQ
> is to come to (Dynamic) Morality.
> Specifically, it is to bring the rational inteligensia back down to earth.
>
> Anyway, it seems the 'fits' are missing the biggest point of all.  And the
> jettisoning of Marsha is proof.
>
> Anyway, Ian, I think you are confused about 'progress'.  But I give you a
> good deal of credit for engaging me here.
>
> I don't see how Marsha has hampered anyone's progress one whit (quite the
> contrary in fact).  I think she has become a scapegoat for people's
> frustration though.  progress is not forthcoming for a very real reason,
> and
> it has nothing to do with the fact that Marsha says "I miss Bo" from time
> to
> time.  (Or the fact that she remains unconvinced that the intellectual
> level
> is not just a subject-object level, or the fact that she rests ultimately
> upon a position which I might paraphrase as "I am
> not".)
>
> Anyway, all the best,
>
> and, again, Horse, thanks - sincerely!  IT is your forum and I'm glad to be
> afforded the privilege of being here.  I just think that you have made a
> decision that works against you.  You have provided this forum to us, and
> now you have lessened the Quality.
>
> Tim
>
>
> On Mon, 3 Jan 2011 10:45:32 +0000, "Ian Glendinning"
> <ian.glendinning at gmail.com> said:
> > Tim, you said in reply to Horse
> > "I get frustrated with xxxx too sometimes, but frustration is just
> > frustration, right?  The point is the Quality, right?  If you start
> > sacrificing quality to ease mere frustration, where is that gonna
> > lead? Which forum do you want?"
> >
> > As a matter of principle Tim, you are so right, but you have to
> > appreciate (you do in fact) that some people have been in that state
> > for many many years, and some have even been stoking their mutual
> > positions (pattern) for almost as many years.
> >
> > Misfits have much value, but Horse is indeed asking the "where is this
> > leading ?" question. One pattern of quality is always sacrificed for
> > another, and it sometimes takes courage to do the sacrificing. I'm for
> > progress.
> > Ian
> >
> --
>
>  rapsncows at fastmail.fm
>
> --
> http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class
>
> 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
>
> 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
>

-- 
parser