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

[Dan Glover]

John,

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:41 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

Dan:
Granted. My point had more to do with: why waste everyone's time on
meaningless crap. If a person is going to contribute, at least make the
effort to do so intelligibly. If a person is some kind of genius far beyond
us ordinary human beings, it becomes vitally important for them to write
down to us. Make us understand.

I don't mean to pick on Joe. I like him. But for all the years we've been
sharing on this list, we've never had a discussion of any consequence.
Perhaps that's partly my fault.


>
>
> 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.
>

Dan:
Looking back at the past couple of months, there was no substantive
discourse taking place here. I think you might call that an unspoken
consensus.


> John:
> 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.
>

Dan:
I didn't want Marsha banned. I argued against it. Despite Ian's
insinuations, it wasn't my fault that it happened. She has been playing
around the edges for years and she finally got too close and fell off.

This group is fortunate to have folk like David Buchanan, Arlo, and a
number of others as members. I think we'd agree that their posts speak for
themselves. When those voices fall silent, it is to the detriment of us
all.

The list is fragile. People come and go but there remains a core of
contributors who are more than willing to help out new arrivals with the
nuances of the MOQ. I realize I am not a teacher in any sense of the word.
I lack the patience that someone such as yourself exhibits.


>
>
> Dan:
> > 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
>

Dan:
I think it is. I also believe that's why when folk are here for years and
yet still refrain from any intellectual discourse, then it is time for them
to go. Cultures depend upon the members to uphold certain values. We are
here to discuss the MOQ. Period. Horse allows us a great deal of leeway but
when it comes down to it, we each are responsible to honor that commitment.



>
>
> Dan:
> > 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.
>

Dan:
I like your answer and I agree. Except I might argue your beliefs are
subjective rather than objective, but that's neither here nor there since
value subsumes both.


>
> Dan:
> 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?
> >
> John:
> 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.
>

Dan:
I've been thinking along the lines of shared values rather than firm
objective ideas contained in books. When I first bought ZMM way back in
1974 it was a paperback that I found in the supermarket aisle. I could hold
it in my hands like an object and read the ink upon the pages solid and
real.

Now, I have a PDF I downloaded (somewhere) that I read on my monitor. It
has several advantages to my old book which I gave away years ago never to
have it returned. It is searchable; I can copy and paste from it without
the tedium of typing out the words; it is portable... I can upload it to my
Android and read it anywhere. It is a living document.

Still, I think the biggest advantage is that the e-book the value contains
is much more explicit. Why? It is no longer an objective thing I can hold
in my hands. There are no printed words objectively adorning each turn of
the page. The book has become what it always was... value. The value is no
longer masked behind the cover. The value is apparent to anyone who uploads
the book even if they never read it. They can use it to cherry pick phrases
or to examine obscure passages heretofore difficult to home in upon.


>
> Thanks for your thoughts on the matter,
>

You're welcome, John. Good to have you back.

Dan

http://www.danglover.com