[MD] Art and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

[Dan Glover]

Hello John, Ian, Andre, and all,

"Each culture presumes its beliefs correspond to some sort of external
reality, but a geography of religious beliefs shows that this external
reality can be just about any damn thing. Even the *facts *that people
observe to confirm the "truth" are dependent on the culture they live in."
[Lila]

I take it we all (presumably) joined this list to be understood.
Disagreements are one thing but goofiness is quite another. I mean, how do
you answer a post like Joe's? As long as I've been here, I've never seen a
cogent post offered up by him. Not once! In that context, for Andre to
suggest he go back and re-read the material is a normal request. He is
attempting to bring Joe into the intellectual fold.

Does that mean Joe and others of his ilk should be banned? Not for me to
say, but if it was, maybe. As John suggests, if a person joins the
group, makes a fool of themselves, but gradually progresses into coherency,
that is acceptable. But how long do we have to read continued nonsense?
Believe me, I am all for giving these folk the benefit of the doubt, but if
we genuinely care about making this group better, there comes a time when
enough is enough.

The real question seems to be: is this discussion group a culture of its
own? And if so, are we presuming these beliefs correspond to some sort of
external (objective) reality? So far as I know, the MOQ subsumes objective
and subjective reality into a framework of value. Are these values to be
found in Lila and ZMM?

Anyway,

Dan


On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:06 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ian,
>
> You recently complained about the amount of garbage in your inbox when you
> subscribed to lilasquad.  So I thought I'd cross-post my response over
> there, to you here and now.  I won't make it a habit, but it seemed
> relevant to the very thing causing  your eye-rolling below.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Ian Glendinning
> <ian.glendinning at gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > So Andre advises Joe to read ZMM & Lila, and Joe tells me Pirsig's
> > metaphysics is defined by words defined by logic.
> >
> > "Roll-eyes"
> > Ian
> > On 9 Jan 2014 19:57, "Joseph Maurer" <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Ian and All,
> > >
> > > In DQ/SQ metaphysics words express reality through logic, logos-logic.
> >  DQ
> > > is indefinable, maintaining meaning through structure, metaphysics,
> > words.
> > > How can a meaning of words be indefinable?  One size does not fit all!
> > Keep
> > > looking DQ/SQ until you feel satisfied!  Individuality has meaning
> > before 1
> > > moves.  DQ/SQ hosts structure, reality.
> > >
> > > Joe
> >
>
> There is no doubt that Tim is bright.  Nor is there any doubt that he has
> trouble being socially accepted - the signs are all around.  And as people
> who are interested in the life and work of Robert M. Pirsig, we all have a
> certain amount of sympathy for intellectual social rejects.
>
> But no group can put up with an individual who is so out of whack that he
> refuses to abide by common communication norms.   TCP/IP wouldn't work if
> acks were gibberish and likewise, human discourse requires a linguistic
> common ground in order to function.  If the gibberish shows promise of
> evolving toward some system of understanding then we can be patient while
> it gets worked out, but if it's just getting more and more insane and hard
> to understand, then it's going in the wrong direction.  And blurting out
> gibberish has a way of putting off newcomers to the list - it obviates
> growth which means it's violent towards any success.  None of us are here
> solely to please ourselves.  We all want better communication and
> understanding.  Without that premise, that caring, we are doomed.
>
> It takes caring about others, to put your words and ideas into easily
> understood format.   When that care is not taken, it shows the opposite of
> care - it shows disdain.
>
> Tim may hate his mother, hate his life, hate the world he lives in, but why
> should we all be the brunt of his anger?  We didn't cause his problems.
> The fact that we can't solve them isn't because we don't care, it's just
> the way reality works.  "Work out YOUR OWN salvation in fear and
> trembling."  (Phil. 2:12)  Don't come bugging us about it.
>
>
> Maybe I'm wrong about all this.  I'm willing to listen to reason.  But
> spamming my inbox with verbal temper tantrums just pisses me off.
>
> John
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>



-- 
http://www.danglover.com