[MD] Changes in 2011

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Horse,

On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 19:19:35 +0000, "Horse" <horse at darkstar.uk.net>
said:
> Tim
> 
> Actually, this forum does have a purpose - whether you see that purpose 
> or not.
> The purpose of this forum is to discuss the MoQ as proposed by Robert 
> Pirsig - that's why it's called moq_discuss or MD for short!

[Tim]
Horse, your response comes relative to a response of mine to someone's
(I don't remember who's at the moment) wording: 'forum's purpose'.  I
was merely pointing out that to make such a statement is to submit to
the trappings of SOM.  What kind of thing is the forum?  And how does it
have a 'purpose'?  I argued that the purpose is in the individuals.  I
argued that, ultimately, it is your purpose.  I think this is the proper
MoQ perspective.  Everyone else comes to the forum with his own purpose
as well.  From what I can tell everyone here has a good deal of
intellectual commitment to quality.  But I don't think that that amounts
to: 'forum's purpose'.

[Horse]
> DMB and Dan and Anthony and Arlo and Magnus and Andre and various other 
> people understand this and so do a number of others that post here. 
> Unfortunately there are a whole bunch of others who haven't quite gotten 
> their heads around this yet and assume that it's just an open forum to 
> discuss everything and anything - cos that's what Quality is.

[Tim]
I think you sell some of us short, Horse.  In my reply from Andre a
moment ago, which I suggest you read to get the full context of this, I
asked - something close to: what happens after you succeed?  What
happens if you attain to that intellectual comprehension of RMP's MoQ?

Either way I think it is a testament to you that you have tolerated me,
and my conversations.  I have benefited a great deal.  Thank you.  But,
to be sure, I also think that I have offered a great deal towards 'the
progress'!!!

> [Horse]
> WRONG!!!!

[Tim]
Horse, I respect your right to decide as you please regarding the
workings of the forum.  I think, however, that you risk putting the wall
in front of you, rather than behind you.  While I can't give you an
intellectual proof showing that that is 'unreasonable', I would just
argue that an internal barrier reduces (along with 'the progress') your
options.  This is to restrict freedom.  This, I think RMP would argue,
is the one thing that is repugnant to DQ.  It is my suggestion that you
don't sacrifice DQ for the hope of attaining to some static intellectual
pattern of value.  Either way, if seems that in is our choices where we
put up our boundaries; that this is a matter of belief, and is
accomplished by faithe; and it does not seem that there is an objective
criteria saying that this choice is more reasonable than that one.

> [Horse]
> I provide this facility so that folks who are interested in RMP's MoQ, 
> as proposed in ZMM, Lila, Lila's Child etc., have somewhere to discuss 
> what they have read in these books.

[Tim]
beautiful.

[Horse]
> And to be honest my patience is now wearing very thin as it seems that 
> the last thing that certain folks (sorry Ian, I know you don't like this 
> sort of phrase but those folks know who I mean) wish to discuss is RMP's 
> MoQ.
> I have been really patient for years and, unfortunately,  allowed this 
> forum to become more social than intellectual, but, as per the subject 
> line, this is going to change in 2011.
> So either the folks that aren't discussing RMP's MoQ sort themselves out 
> extremely quickly or there will be several less members on MD in the 
> very near future.

[Tim]
Thanks for your honesty about your patience.  But Horse, I would just
suggest that this business about walls is not so straightforward. 
Perhaps you can liken my use of 'wall' here to RMP's use of 'divide', as
with his 'knife'.  Sometimes you have to go around the wall.  Sometimes
you have to go all the way to the opposite side of the forum and put
your wall there.

> 
> I hope I am making myself abundantly clear.
> 
> Horse

[Tim]
well, if you are on the verge of booting me, I would just say that I
think that I have made great strides in my development recently.  I will
forever be able to thank you for that!  It is due to my appreciation
(and my greater selfishness) that I suggest that you give my
conversations (which are not just mine) a longer reading and
consideration.

> 
> PS
> Oh, and by the way if anyone else feels like taking the piss, you're 
> gonna be history even sooner!

[Tim]
It is certainly not my intention to take the piss.

> 
> PPS
> If you want to know what the purpose and rules of this forum and and how 
> it should run then go here:
> 
> http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
> 

all the best,
Tim
 
> 
> On 07/01/2011 01:09, rapsncows at fastmail.fm wrote:
> > You excerpted RMP so well I thought you understood.  But you say: "the
> > forum's central purpose."  Who is the forum?  How does it have a
> > purpose?  You would do well to listen to Marsha.  How conventional you
> > become outside reference to authorities!  Horse has a purpose.  He has
> > created a forum for that purpose.  This forum is no independent existing
> > entity that it*has*  a purpose.  Now, do you think it better that you
> > follow that with "group's"?  The group is no independent existing entity
> > that has a purpose either.  It is individuals who have purpose.  And, we
> > come together into this thing that we conventionally call a group, or a
> > forum.  It seems we all have different purposes though.  I have told you
> > mine.  Will you tell us yours?
> >
> 

-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service