[MD] Changes in 2011

[John Carl]

Greetings Dan,

I'll try and be as quiet as possible.


> 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:

I understand, and understood perfectly from the beginning what you mean
dan.  "Skimming' also means ignoring posts that you know from experience
will not be that enlightening.  For instance, you see plainly in your in box
that I've posted a reply to Marsha or dmb or somebody, and you know from
experience that my posts are largely silly nonsense, so you just simply
delete them and move on to something more productive and in line with what
you want to read.

That's skimming.  For you to complain that you have to glance at my name in
the header doesn't seem like a valid complaint to me.  You either find value
in being part of this ongoing discourse or you don't.  Complaining to the
rest of us about how busy you are just seems... well it seems like silly
nonsense to me.  You make your own choices about what e-mails you click on
and what lists you join.  For me to change my writing to conform to your
unspoken expectation is the silliest nonsense I could possibly imagine.  I
wouldn't even know where to begin.




>
> 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.
>


John:

Many good writers have trouble with imagining a vast audience for their
words and find it helpful to focus on just one person.  This is an old
technique.  The fact that my words for you, might just have some relevance
to others, is what keeps this whole endeavor interesting and valuable.  It
also speaks to the commonality of our experience and I think those things
that are common to all are usually the most interesting to me, but that can
only be discovered by putting the words out there and seeing how it goes.
My point about "exploration" is highly apropos.




> > 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:

I wasn't lying to you dan. I'm actually a pretty sincere guy.  When I say I
have no idea, I really mean it.  That doesn't mean you HAVE to spell it out
for me, but if you really want me to understand what the hell you're talking
about then yeah, you have to spell it out.



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.
>


John:

I beg to differ from your conclusion.  Or perhaps we have differing concepts
of "self esteem".  To my mind, somebody with self-esteem issues is somebody
that needs the affirmation of others in order to feel good about
themselves.  I on the other hand, feel good enough about myself that I
really don't care if I'm ranked amongst the plebians.  I look at "plebian"
as a person of low social status.  But a low social status doesn't always
connote a low intellectual quality.  Persons of high social status are the
ones who have busy enough schedules that they don't have time to mess around
with MD, probably.  Obviously Robert Pirsig has a pretty high social status,
but since Lila's Child was all about his system, he found it worth his while
to engage with others.

And also, I think the MoQ has some interesting and valuable points to make
about the moral relationship between social and intellectual quality.  So in
an MoQ context, "plebian" isn't quite as derogatory as it seems to those who
do have self-esteem issues.

Dan:


> 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



John:

Ok,  my point then is that rather than discouraging others here with
criticisms of their noise and nonsense, I think you ought to encourage more
participation and engagement in a positive fashion.  If you think the
quality of the writing here needs to improve, the best way I can imagine is
by setting high standards for yourself and giving people something to strive
for by example.

And yeah, I could say the same thing for myself, but then I'm not the one
complaining.


>
> Dan:
> I sit in zazen five times a day and have for 25 years now. It gets me
> nowhere.



John:

Just think, you could cut out a couple days a week and you'd have more time
for posting enjoyable writing to the MoQ.

dan:


> 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?
>
>
John:

Yes.  I know.  The question is, do you?