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

[John Carl]

Dan,

I did think about my diatribe in terms of Joe also because like TIm, I
can't understand him.

But Joe at least keeps it short. whereas Tim spews more nonsense the more
he's threatened which exhibits
blatant hostility.  I don't get that from Joe.


On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

J:

According to the community building model I learned, excluding a member of
the community is sometimes necessary but should always be anguished over,
i.e., not taken lightly.  And it's best if it's a consensus rather than an
arbitrary decision.

Which leads me to another thought: Horse isn't banning people out of a
sense of pique or personal grievance but when he see something the group
wants, or needs, he carries it out.  I didn't grasp that for a long time.




> The real question seems to be: is this discussion group a culture of its
> own?



J:  I would say it's trying to become one.  Whether or not it's there is
not for me to say



> And if so, are we presuming these beliefs correspond to some sort of
> external (objective) reality?


J:  Speaking for myself, no.  The only objective thing about my beliefs  is
that I know they are mine. But communicating them and sharing them in the
quest for harmonious understanding is a good thing.


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?
>

Now that is a good question.  Pirsig emphasized the individual to an extent
that it's hard to figure out how to work out a method deriving shared
values from the MoQ.  In some ways that's good.  Everybody here thinks for
them self.  But it makes it hard to quench extreme individualistic heresy
and so we have to rely on the good judgement of horse.  That's not a long
term solution.

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter,

John