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

[Ian Glendinning]

To which I should add two points Dan,

(1) Which is precisely where you were in your recent exchange with
Marsha, before you both flipped your playful tolerance bits.

(2) And why I say as carefully (caringly) as I can to DMB (the
champion / paragon of aiming to get MoQ on a serious academic footing)
- "Careful Dave, you're killing the MoQ in the process."

Ian

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Ian Glendinning
<ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> We agree enough is enough.
> If I may focus on your final para:
>
>> 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?
>
> I think there is a lot on this.
>
> The culture of this group "should" comprise the values we find in Lila
> and ZMM sure.
>
> Playful (whether worldly / knowing or naive / neurotic) social
> interaction is simply part of being a group - the bit we agree needs
> to be within limits of tolerance, caring for each other as
> individuals, to use John's language.
>
> But the core culture is of course schizophernic / split-personality
> between ZMM and Lila. (And Paul gave us a "two views" perspective on
> this.)
>
> Those on the philosophical academe agenda, the Lila half, clearly seem
> intent on subsuming whatever qualities MoQ has (had) into some
> objective subject-object dialectic. (Mark / 118 said as much
> recently).
>
> For me these are welcome to their own agenda, I respect their rights
> to do so - in an academic context. What I can't accept is this agenda
> subsuming the whole art & rhetroic of zen and the art of MD, which
> only flourishes without the overly objective shackles.
>
> Half dead is not alive.
> Ian