[MD] Dicks and limits

[John Carl]

Tim,

First, I do agree that "thank you has limits".  That is true.  Second thing
however...

>
> > [John] I lay away and think about MD too.
>
> [Tim] I wasn't thinking about MD!  I was thinking about people.



MD is people.  What else could it be?  When I'm thinking about MD, I'm
thinking about the community of people who discuss the MoQ, stick it out for
years and years and go through various moods, changes and attitudes.  That's
what "thinking about MD means to me."  And it usually takes a while for a
new person to register fully on the radar screen.  It takes a while to trust
that any new person who joins, is not going to drift away on a whim.  Online
community has a few dynamics that real life doesn't.



> You and
> David in particular.  But all of us who have set our hopes on 'fair
> justice', as Jan-Anders has coined it for us.
>
> I'm fine letting the process handle the process.  It seems trustworthy.
> And if we can take a big leap forward towards 'fair justice', then it
> will probably have deservedly earned my gratitude too.  How far do you
> want to delve into the unknown?  I hope you will come out for a while.
> What is the line: "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy."  Play,
> and jackassery, and degeneracy seem quite tolerable if we are capable of
> fessing up, apologizing, and forgiving - and moving on.
>
> I suggest you turn around.  At least for a while.  Give it a break.
> That's what I hope to do.  I was quite happy walking away from my broken
> down motorcycle.  What motorcycle runs forever?  Let's get a new one.
> What do you say?  Do you wanna pursue 'fair justice' with me?  It seems
> like this one is ready to go somewhere.
>

Well, to be perfectly frank, I'm not sure what you mean.  I just did make a
major turn-around in dropping my urge to discuss Royce and Absolute
Idealism.  It was passion for that which was at the basis of my rejoining MD
over a year ago, right after I discovered him while painting a mural in the
Grass Valley library. (If you wanna see a pict, go
here<http://www.allvoices.com/s/event-3148845/aHR0cDovL3d3dy50aGV1bmlvbi5jb20vYXJ0aWNsZS8yMDA5MDUwNi9ORVdTLzkwNTA1OTkzOS8tMS9yc3MwMg==>-
that's my wife and daughter standing under it)  Since I've gotten lots
of
resistance, and very little encouragement, I decided to stop doing so.
Especially since, on this farm where all animals are equal, some are
admittedly more equal than others.  Intellectually, I haven't changed my
mind, but socially, with no concurrence I have to say, "who am I, to blow
against the wind?"

I must say though, I'm extremely glad I did try.  I've learned a great deal
about the golden age of American Philosophy and have engaged upon a
life-long quest and passion to learn everything I can.  And I will always
treasure the insights of the MoQ with which I came to Royce's central
arguments about the nature of reality as inherently valuistic, but coming
from a differing angle.  Whereas Phaedrus started his investigations by
asking "what is good", Royce began from an extreme skepticism that asks
"what is error?"



> John, I trust your sincerity.  I can tolerate flub ups.  I can tolerate
> dick comments.  I can tolerate lots of really terrible things too.
> John, you are a plebian, right?  You know how much shit plebians can
> take.  They are 'strong like bull'.  Don't you think they are ready to
> forgive everything for a chance at 'fair justice'?
>
>
Sigh.  It's not a matter of "forgiveness" Tim.  It's a matter of
politeness.  It's a matter of no longer pushing an unwanted topic into
discussion.



> >
> > "Boring" is definitely NOT an issue here.
> >
>
> Well, over here I can tell you I am fed up with oppression.
>
>
>
Oppression, my friend, is an entity that only has power in our own head.



> >
> > Well as to my reputation... one nice thing about life on the "low road"
> > is
> > that I don't have to worry too much about such things.
>
> forget those roads.  in the social roads your reputation will matter
> some.  And you've got a really strong one anyway!
>
> >
> > I had qualms and regrets, even while typing my superlative "never".  But
> > yet, I did it anyway.
>
> this honesty will only add to your reputation I hope.
>
>
Well, I doubt anybody is going to name any Library after me when I'm gone,
but thanks for the kind sentiment anyhoo.




> >  The caveat "unwillingly" does leave the door open
> > to
> > future engagement if dmb ever wanted any.  I'm pretty doubtful of that
> > though.  You'd have to review a lot of our history if you were to
> > understand
> > fully the whole story, but dmb has argued for my exclusion from this
> > forum
> > for a long time and has expressed nothing but contempt for my viewpoint.
>
> John, I don't think David harbors much contempt for your viewpoint.  If
> you
> were willing to ask him, I like to think it would be settled ... like a
> snap of the fingers ;)
>
>
Dude, let me just say that I've had a lot more experience with dmb's
contempt for me than you.  Ever since I've joined I've gotten pretty much
nothing but contempt from him.  What are you basing this on?  Your own good
nature projected onto others?  You might want to re-examine your
assumptions.



> anyway, the point is that we are not talking about metaphysics at the
> moment.  we are talking about politics.  The discussion that Horse has
> been looking forward to having.  Now, I didn't have to look very far
> before I found solid agreeable stuff from David: Nov 4:
>
>
Well, I'm sorry to rain upon your parade, but dmb didn't write this stuff ya
know.  He just snips it and quotes it.  I agree with Lila and ZAMM too.
That's why I'm here.  But I don't think my task in the forum is to just pass
passages back and forth. I think we are here to assimilate these words and
demonstrate their outworking in our lives.  That's why I like to tell
stories, primarily.  When I'm not being blocked by criticism, that is.

But when called upon, I can quote too, ya know.

"The thought of this completely thrilled him. It was like discovering a
cancer cure. No more explanations of what art is. No more wonderful critical
schools of experts to determine rationally where each composer had succeeded
or failed. All of them, every last one of those know-it-alls, would finally
have to shut up. This was no longer just an interesting idea. This was a
dream."


"In the area of Religion, the rational relationship of Quality to the
Godhead needs to be more thoroughly established, and this I hope to do much
later on. For the time being one can meditate on the fact that the old
English roots for the Buddha and Quality, God and good, appear to be
identical. It's in the area of Science that I want to focus attention in the
immediate future, for this is the area that most badly needs the
relationship established. The dictum that Science and its offspring,
technology, are "value free," that is, "quality free," has got to go. It's
that "value freedom" that underlines the death-force effect to which
attention was brought early in the Chautauqua. Tomorrow I intend to start on
that."


"What he said was megalomaniacal, but suppose it was true? If he was wrong,
who would care? But suppose he was right? To be right and throw it away in
order to please the predilections of his teachers, that would be the
monstrosity!"


"He felt that intellectuals usually have the greatest trouble seeing this
Quality, precisely because they are so swift and absolute about snapping
everything into intellectual form. The ones who have the easiest time seeing
this Quality are small children, uneducated people and culturally "deprived"
people. These have the least predisposition toward intellectuality from
cultural sources and have the least formal training to instill it further
into them. That, he felt, is why squareness is such a uniquely intellectual
disease. He felt he'd been accidentally immunized from it, or at least to
some extent broken from the habit by his failure from school. After that he
felt no compulsive identification with intellectuality and could examine
anti-intellectual doctrines with sympathy."


> John, we all battled it out over extremes in the intellectual level (am
> I right here Andre?), but in the social level I think we will have an
> easier time finding common ground.  If we aren't talking about the
> foundations and unknowns, I think we can get along.  I hope.
>
>
There's an insight there.  If I met Professor Buchanan or anyone here on the
street somewhere out there in the real world, I'd be delighted beyond
bounds, no doubt, to find somebody as interested in the MoQ as myself.  The
last time I had a close friend who was as passionate about discussing this
stuff was a guy named Steve Marquis.  Would you like to hear what happened
to our friendship?  I'll tell you some time.



>
> > I
> > honestly think it'd be easier to get a facelift and turn into a handsome
> > man, than change who I fundamentally am.  If there are misunderstandings,
> > those can be rectified.  But how can I rectify "nausea"?  That's a
> > visceral
> > reaction that can't be argued away.
>
> pop out of yourself?  Lets worry about our less fortunate neighbors for
> a bit, see if we can help them out so that they will be more free to
> play too.
>
>
>
You've baffled me again.  "less fortunate"?  Who do I know with less fortune
than me?  Battling as I am,  foreclosure, bankruptcy and condemnation all at
the same time.  Yet hey, I'm not complaining.  In fact, it's like when I
took San Soo Kung Fu and learned about using your enemies force against
himself, while remaining calmly in the center.



> > Here is where I think you're wrong.  I don't get dmb being "down" at all.
> > Maybe you know something I don't.  But I've had no indication of this.
> > Second, I can't see my "kicking" to be any sort of consequence to dmb.
> > His
> > opinion of me is so low that my kicks mean absolutely nothing to him.
> > Who
> > cares what a poor white trash plebian thinks?  As Adrie has so kindly
> > pointed out, I will never amount to anything and dmb has all kinds of
> > academic success and applause so there's no reason to conclude that my
> > cessation of interaction with him means anything at all to him.
>
> pfpfpfpfpfpfp....  maybe you are right though, about David being back up
> already.  I hope so.
>
>
Well I've doubted your word that he's "down" all along.  Disgruntled and
disgusted maybe.  Busy, certainly.  But not at all down.  Perhaps waiting
for Bob to prop up his ego again perhaps, but certainly not concerned with
me or my opinions.  I know full well what he thinks of me.  Even before I
joined, he thought I was  "just plain rude and a little bit neurotic." Look
it up in the archives, if you wish.

*From:* David Buchanan
(*DBuchanan at ClassicalRadio.org*<DBuchanan at ClassicalRadio.org?Subject=RE:%20MD%20Friendship>
)
*Date:* Sat Apr 23 2005 - 04:01:00 BST

And you'll see what I mean by this being an old, old antagonism.  All on
it's own, that's not such a big deal, but when you add in the social weight
of being "Bob's fave", such criticism has had a devastating effect upon a
friendship that started in 1975 and persisted through many long years of
moving and changes.  I recently reconciled with Steve, to an extent, but it
will probably never recapture the flow and flavor we once shared and now
that I'm moving off the Ridge (where he lives a couple blocks away from me)
I see even less chance for a real reconciliation.

Still, that's not completely dmb's fault.  But it does illustrate the point
that you can do a lot of damage when you speak ill of others without knowing
all the details, and a propensity to do so is not an indicator of high
quality, imo.

Anyway, all this is old news and unpleasant memories.  It'd all be "forgive
and forget" I'm sure, if somehow my core being just didn't make him quite so
nauseous.

There.  Aren't you glad you poked this old wound Tim?

Not!

Sometimes letting the "process handle the process" is an astonishing
process.

Take care,

John