[MD] The first cut.

[Horse]

Hi Mark

On 25/01/2012 15:54, 118 wrote:
> Hi Horse,
>
> Yes, well put.  Sometimes we need a foil with which to strengethen our
> resolve.  If we understand how MoQ can be misinterpreted it gives us
> ammunition for consolidating it.

First let me say that I like Marsha - my criticisms of what she writes 
don't always come across like that but it is true.
I find that trying to work out what Marsha is saying much of the time is 
rarely a productive endeavour.
There are some things that she is obviously saying because she repeats 
them ad nauseam.
This forum is, primarily, for discussion of Pirsig's MoQ and the problem 
with giving a platform to every nut-job and weirdo (and I most 
definitely do NOT include Marsha here) who misinterprets Pirsig is that 
there are a lot more of them than those that, in my opinion, do 
understand Pirsig.
I would rather that time was spent here discussing and expanding upon 
Pirsigs original work and not having to waste time countering the 
arguments of nutters and fruitcakes.
Personally I don't find this unreasonable in a forum whose main raison 
d'etre is the discussion of Pirsig's MoQ.

> MoQ is not "whatever we want it to
> be".  This is the relativism that Marsha seeks to imbue this
> metaphysics with.

I don't think any metaphysics is or can be "whatever we want it to be". 
In order for a metaphysics to work it needs to be rigorous and defined - 
otherwise it's just irrelevant musings. This doesn't mean that it must 
be static and unchanging just that any changes need to be an improvement 
not retrograde. Marsha's explorations do little to advance the MoQ (in 
my opinion) but I don't think she is doing harm.

> I am not sure if Marsha's mind is closed, her participation is based
> more on the social aspects of this forum (IMO) and that is not a
> problem.

As I said above, this forum is primarily for the discussion of Pirsigs 
MoQ and this is, for the most part, an intellectual endeavour. Sure, 
there are social aspects to it but if those social aspects threaten to 
undermine the intellectual aspects then they need to be reduced or, as a 
last resort, removed. This is not something I like to do but it is 
sometimes necessary - and before Marsha says anything I am not making 
veiled threats against her or even dropping heavy hints!
I have no problem with MD having a good social quality underpinning - 
this is entirely in line with the MoQ - but the Intellectual content is 
primary.

> I am not sure if dumbness applies as much as "neediness",
> and we all have some that.

My remark about "...Pirsig is just too frigging dumb to understand" was 
a reference to Pirsig's, not Marsha's, dumbness. This comes from
some time back when a group of MD participants claimed that Pirsig was 
just too stupid and cowardly to understand the MoQ and only St Bodvar of 
Norway and his acolytes, having received enlightenment, were the true 
heirs to the mysteries of the MoQ!!! He is one of the nutters and 
fruitcakes I was referring to above.
What annoyed me most about this bunch was that after giving Bodvar 10 
years of space on this forum (and hosting his essays on the MOQ.ORG 
site) to convince others of the merits of his nonsense, when I ask him 
over a period of months to cease being increasingly aggressive, abusive 
and insulting towards everyone who disagreed with him, not only does he 
refuse to do so but claims that I'm being unreasonable in asking him to 
behave reasonably. I also liked Bo and didn't - as his hangers on 
claimed - ban him or try to censor him. I just tried to get him to act 
reasonably and when this failed I took the appropriate steps to make him 
behave reasonably. There is only so much leeway available with the use 
of a keyboard!

> Perhaps the rational arguments presented
> by others in this forum falls on deaf ears there, but there are others
> who read the contents of this forum.  That is what I meant by debate.
> If we all marched lock-step nothing much would happen, IMO, and any
> newcommers would be presented with dogma rather than exploration.

I'm all for debate on MD as long as it's relevant to Pirsig's MoQ. I 
also have no problem with MD participants pushing the boundaries of the 
MoQ as long as they are able to distinguish between what is reasonable 
and what is not.
I think you also have to distinguish between dogma and established and 
reasonable belief. Often the accusation of dogma is used by those that 
are unable to convince others of a weak or incorrect position which any 
reasonable person sees as wrong. Just using the term pejoratively makes 
little sense unless you have something to back it up with.
Sticking to your guns does not make you dogmatic - but it doesn't make 
you right either.

> Having said that, my posts are sometimes on the fringe, but I mean
> well.  I am always open to corrections.

Glad to hear it Mark. The problem I have with some of your posts is that 
I cannot always see where you are going with them and often when I do I 
don't agree. However, that may well be more my problem than yours and 
I'm not going to stop you speculating - but please keep your 
speculations relevant to Pirsig's MoQ. That's all I ask of anyone on 
this forum.


Cheers

Horse

> On 1/25/12, Horse<horse at darkstar.uk.net>  wrote:
>> The Great Bogeyman replies......
>>
>> But certainly 4 as Mark has now commented.
>> You may learn from debate Mark but, as you have already experienced,
>> Marsha neither learns from debate nor wants to learn from debate.
>> To learn from debate requires an open mind and Marsha's mind is as
>> closed as they come - which is why she rarely engages in debate,
>> preferring instead to repeat herself over and over mantra style.
>> Marsha is also not here to discuss Pirsig's MoQ - she is here to promote
>> a variation of the MoQ based on a misinterpretation, but which claims to
>> be the 'real' MoQ that Pirsig is just too frigging dumb to understand.
>>
>> Horse
>>
>> On 24/01/2012 22:13, 118 wrote:
>>> Pirsig here....
>>>
>>> I like debate, I learn from it.  Either side can stop the debate by
>>> not responding.  It takes two to tango! (or maybe three now that Horse
>>> has put in his opinion).
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/24/12, Horse<horse at darkstar.uk.net>   wrote:
>>>> I doubt this will make any difference to Marsha, Dave - a lot of this is
>>>> rooted in the SOM as Intellect debacle from some time ago. It doesn't
>>>> matter how much evidence you present or even if Pirsig himself joined in
>>>> the conversation.
>>>>
>>>> Horse
>>>>
>>>> On 24/01/2012 18:40, david buchanan wrote:
>>>>> “A Dynamic advance is meaningless unless it can find some static pattern
>>>>> with which to protect itself from degeneration back to the conditions
>>>>> that
>>>>> existed before the advance was made.  Evolution can't be a continuous
>>>>> forward movement.  It must be a process of ratchet-like steps in which
>>>>> there is a Dynamic movement forward up some new incline and then, if the
>>>>> result looks successful, a static latching-on of the gain that has been
>>>>> made; then another Dynamic advance, then another static latch…” (LILA,
>>>>> end
>>>>> of Chapter 11)
>>>>>
>>>>> "Sometimes a Dynamic increment goes forward but can find no latching
>>>>> mechanism and so fails and slips back to a previous latched position.
>>>>> Whole species and cultures get lost this way. Sometimes a static pattern
>>>>> becomes so powerful that it prohibits any Dynamic moves forward. In both
>>>>> cases the evolutionary process is halted for a while. But when it's not
>>>>> halted the result has been an increase in power to control hostile
>>>>> forces
>>>>> or an increase in versatility or both. The increase in versatility is
>>>>> directed toward DQ. The increase in power to control hostile forces is
>>>>> directed toward static quality. Without DQ the organism cannot grow.
>>>>> Without static quality the organism cannot last. Both are needed."
>>>>> (LILA,
>>>>> end of chapter 11)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "When this understanding first broke through in Phaedrus' mind, that
>>>>> ethics and science had suddenly been integrated into a single system, he
>>>>> became so manic he couldn't think of anything else for days. The only
>>>>> time
>>>>> he had been more manic about an abstract idea was when he had first hit
>>>>> upon the idea of undefined Quality itself. The consequences of that
>>>>> first
>>>>> mania had been disastrous, and so now, this time, he told himself just
>>>>> to
>>>>> calm down and dig in. It was, for him, a great Dynamic breakthrough, but
>>>>> if he wanted to hang on to it he had better do some static latching as
>>>>> quickly and thoroughly as possible." (Lila, end of chapter 12)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dharma, like rta, means 'what holds together.' It is the basis of all
>>>>> order. It equals righteousness. It is the ethical code. It is the stable
>>>>> condition which  gives man perfect satisfaction. ...Dharma is Quality
>>>>> itself, the principle of 'rightness' which gives structure and purpose
>>>>> to
>>>>> the evolution of all life and to the evolving understanding of the
>>>>> universe which life has created." (LILA, Chapter 30)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "No, he did nothing for Quality or the Tao.  What benefited was reason.
>>>>> He
>>>>> showed a way by which reason may be expanded to include elements that
>>>>> have
>>>>> previously been unassimilable and thus have been considered irrational."
>>>>> (ZAMM, p. 257)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "But now we have with us some concepts that greatly alter the whole
>>>>> understanding of things. Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific
>>>>> reality. Quality is the goal of Art." (ZAMM, p. 276)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "I want to show that that classic pattern of rationality can be
>>>>> tremendously improved, expanded and made far more effective through the
>>>>> formal recognition of Quality in its operation." (ZAMM, p. 278)
>>>>>
>>

-- 

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa