[MD] Changes in 2011

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:24 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dan and all,
>
> Dan:
>>
>> Yes it is noise, John. That is precisely the problem, and one that
>> keeps me (and I imagine a lot of others) from posting more often.
>> Maybe you like wading through post after post of one-liners and a
>> constant barrage of u-tube nonsense, but I simply don't have the time.
>>
>>
> John:
>
> Well I still don't quite understand, but I guess I'll just have to take your
> word for it.  I mean, haven't you people ever heard of skimming?

Dan:
Skimming? Skimming works fine, but you seem to be vbeing either
deliberately obtuse or misunderstanding what I am saying on a
fundamental level. Say I log onto my email account in the morning and
i have maybe 15 minutes before I leave on my business for the day. I
have 35 emails from moq.discuss.

I have to open each one. And of those 35, maybe 30 of them are either
one-line bullshit or links to u-tube or some other nonsense. WTF. And
maybe I see something interesting in one of the other 5 but now all
the time I have alloted is wasted opening emails that are basically
spam. I have no way of knowing that though, until I actually open
them.

You may have all day to play, but I don't, and I am guessing many of
us do not have that kind of time. That, my friend, is noise. Pure and
simple. And skimming does me no good. Do you see what I mean now?

>John:
> Me personally, I have a hard time communicating with groups of people.
> Every single person has their own unique viewpoint and vocabulary so when
> speaking to more than one person, you have to find that which is common to
> both.

Dan:
Well, I would moq.discuss is rather unique in that we are basically
communicatiing with one person (who wrote the post) as well as every
one who subscribes to the list (who are reading our replies). As I
told you before, it is good to remember that. When you write to me,
for example, you are not just writing to me, although you are. You are
writing to everyone.

That's why I continually insist on some kind of commonality, in this
case, the MOQ. In addition, using dictionary definitions is essential
for clear and concise understanding, which we should all be striving
for here... not made-up words and definitions that suit our own
purposes, whatever those may be.

>Dan:
> I certainly don't think everyone here is an idiot. Otherwise I
>> wouldn't have hung around as long as I have. I do however think there
>> are those here who could do better. And that bothers me. I see certain
>> contributors who are actively seeking to better themselves, and it
>> seems they are attacked and ridiculed over and over by those seeking
>> some sort of weird status quo.
>>
>> Think about it, indeed.
>>
>>
> John:
>
> Such generalities as you offer here go completely over my head.  I have NO
> idea who or what you are talking about and I find the whole idea of
> criticising the contributions of others completely ridiculous anyway.

Dan:
You read the same posts that I do. Do I really have to spell it out
for you? I will. Just let me know.

John:
>Here,
> let me illustrate what I mean:
>
> What I'd like to see in MD is really good writing and really good thinking.
> The kind of greatness that we experience in the best books and the best
> writers.  Right?
>
> Well... duh.  Obviously we all want is to experience fantastic linguistic
> formulations of everlasting wisdom and beauty but instead we're stuck with
> each other.  People who are really, really great writers and thinkers are
> uncommon and they have a lot more useful things to do with their time than
> communicate with plebians like you and me, so it's just silly to criticize
> anyone for falling short of the lofty standards of high quality we all have
> in our heads.   I posted once a while back that if you want to find people
> of Quality, then you probably should look elsewhere than a forum of people
> seeking people of Quality.  People of Quality are not seeking Quality.  Why
> should they?  They've already got it.  Therefore, the only people you'll
> find seeking Quality are those that don't have it.

Dan:
Well, John, I beg to differ with your conclusions here. Robert Pirsig
took the time to answer many questions posed in LILA'S CHILD when he
didn't have to. He must have seen something of value in the "plebians"
who asked those questions. You seem to have a self-esteem problem that
you are projecting on everyone here.

Yes, really good writers and thinkers ARE uncommon. That is why I am
here. There is no one in my personal life who enjoys discussing this
kind of stuff. No one. And I know a lot of people... literally
hundreds, maybe even thousands if I really thought about it. Christ,
John, as a real estate agent, I was in over 500 houses just last year
and I can count on one hand the number of books I saw in those houses.
But every single house had at least one television set. And most had
multiple sets.

Of course there are great writers and thinkers who will never grace
moq.discuss. That goes without saying though.

>John:
> Think about it, indeed.
>
> In the meantime, there is absolutely no way to mandate Quality.  You can't
> say "you should say this" or "you should say that".  If one knew which words
> were the right ones, then one would simply say them.  It's a process, a
> working out.  An exploration and an attempt.  Any critique that asserts "you
> should write better" is both obviously true and useless at the same time.
> If you seriously think this list would improve greatly with a diminishment
> of "noise" then I suggest you shut off your computer and stare at the blank
> screen for a few months and see how great that seems.

Dan:
I sit in zazen five times a day and have for 25 years now. It gets me
nowhere. But my body enjoys it. Again, you are missing my point,
either deliberately or not. I am guessing the former, which is why I
have criticized you repeatedly in the past for not taking this as
seriously as you might. There comes a time where a person just gives
up though. You know?

>
> Take care,

Yeah, you too,

Dan