[MD] Changes in 2011

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Andre,

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:58:54 +0100, "Andre Broersen"
<andrebroersen at gmail.com> said:
> Tim to Andre:
> 
> The difference is AIM.  Aiming to discuss Pirsig's metaphysics of Quality
> is a terrible
> idea.  Aiming to improve your intellectual level static patterns is a
> great Idea.
> 
> Andre:
> My mistake Tim, apologies. The purpose of this MD is discussing MOQ. Aim
> is as you say, to understand and improve.

Tim:
I needed no apology; but if you need it from me, you certainly have it.

"Aim", I think, is to quality wherever, or in whatever form, etc. and
etc., it should arise.

The reason that MoQ_Discuss has been successful is because RMP has come
so close to quality.  But, remember, he was up against the unknown - and
I can't find the right adverb to assign here.  He didn't derive the MoQ
from a study of the book 'Lila'. So, his giving us 'Lila' is both a gift
and a burden!!  Mistake is inevitable.  I don't see how we can *do* much
of anything without "purpose", but I think we have to always keep it in
the back of our mind that that "purpose" is somehow a starting in the
middle.  If you have picked a good place to start, it will go well.  But
that doesn't mean that the purpose has to remain rock solid.  Commitment
is important.  But so is knowing when you have erred.

> 
> Tim:
> Andre, my point is this.  What if you should come to fully understand
> Quality?  What if your hopes of progress in these lines comes to
> fruition?  What then?
> 
> Andre:
> I think it is impossible to 'fully understand Quality'. Refinement,
> improvement, artistry is something that evolves continuously. Stamina,
> gumption, commitment and caring (among others) necessary 'ingredients' in
> this process.

Tim:
You are probably right about it being impossible to fully understand
Quality!  But this too seems to be a starting in the middle, if you
will!  Anyway, if Quality ever gets hemmed into a box from which it
cannot break it will be a real shame, so it seems.  But that too seems
to be a starting in the middle!

Yes, all the quality tools...

> 
> Tim (in answer to what's 'the point' of Quality):
> 'know': no?  But, by faithe (and humility), I am quite confident.
> 
> Andre:
> So, by 'faithe (and humility)' what's the point of Quality? (You are
> suggesting there is a 'point')
> 
> 

Tim:
'point': I didn't mean to suggest that!  I think that there is one
not-point; rather, something is.  Something is can seem real great at
times, and it can also seem real crappy.  My only one real problem with
the MoQ was the insistence that Quality must be simple.  I think Quality
cannot sink so low.  For better and worse, something is must be, and
'dealing with it' by whomever/whatever has to deal with it might even be
unfair.  I can only hope that this is not so!  The question I have had
is if it is worth dealing with.  A lot of times I think maybe not, but
that is only when I set my sights on the 'stars'.  If I bring myself
back down to 'earth', that is, the utter present, that utter present
always seems worth it, or at least tolerable.  But I am very fortunate,
and I can imagine other scenarios - which I am quite sure are very real
for other people - in which it would not even be tolerable!

but, more to the point.  I have mentioned many times now that all
knowledge seems to be personal (M. Polanyi).  Or, 'objective' knowledge
requires a starting in the middle (and truth is measured relative to
that start).  ... long something ... other people to share it with and
the ability to let go and play, these make the worries and troubles
light.  It is easy to deal with this darned fact that something (life?)
must be if you can be that free.  But, it seems to me, that freedom has
to be earned.  I can't justify leaving out any "neighbor".  If I could,
why shouldn't that "neighbor" be me?

Thanks,
Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Or how I learned to stop worrying and
                          love email again