[MD] 42

[Dan Glover]

John,

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:05 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Dan, at last,
>
> Dan:
>
>> Do you ever ask others in your personal life if they've read ZMM? I
>> do. No one has ever said yes. Not one person. I've given away dozens
>> of copies. When I ask about it, I'm told the book is too 'out there'
>> or that it wasn't what they thought it would be so they stopped
>> reading it.
>>
>>
> J:
>
> Yes!  I do ask.  I tend to seek out and ask the more intellectually
> oriented.  Professional Philosophers and such.  I have a few friends with
> PhDs and a few more who are just seekers and thinkers.  All of them, ALL of
> them have read ZAMM.  None of them - NONE, could get through Lila.  It's
> interesting.  I think ZAMM has had a huge influence on our society that is
> not understood but I think the feeling that people take with them when they
> finish that book is anti-authoritarian and to follow their own heart.
> Unfortunately reinforcing subjective values was not the point Pirsig wanted
> to make and that was why the conflict with Rigel arose early in Lila.

Dan:
That's interesting. I guess I need to widen my circle of friends. Then
again, I do know a few with PhDs and they haven't read ZMM either.
They tell me that they've heard about it. So if they haven't gotten
around to reading the first book, throwing out the second at them
doesn't make sense. I've even offered to give them a copy but they get
this look in their eyes as if I'm overstepping some weird boundary
that I wasn't aware of until that moment.

Yes I have heard ZMM described as a counter-culture book which is unfortunate.

>
> Dan:
>
>
>> More to your point, have you considered your own bias towards the
>> subject/object metaphysics and how it might be blinding you to the
>> nuances of the MOQ? I'm not worried about getting the MOQ accepted by
>> society. I consider that a fool's mission, but not for the reason you
>> give.
>>
>>
> J:  When I first read Pirsig, it wasn't a big awakening so much as a
> pleasant surprise that somebody else understood the same problems and saw
> things the way I did.  I came to ZAMM through a different route than most
> people I'd say - Deep Ecology is also an inquiry into values.
>
> But a bias towards S/O thinking is just part of human life.  My assertion
> (slippery tho it may be!) is that it's programmed into us socially from an
> early age and it's the de facto OS (operating system) of all our social
> interactions so it does have a socially reinforced bias.  If you can't
> communicate with your fellows, you are an ostracized loner with no hope of
> reproductive success.  This is a problem.

Dan:
Perhaps that is a reason why Robert Pirsig wrote his books, to
elucidate the assumption that the world is comprised of nothing but
subjects and objects and to offer something better. I pretty much feel
like an ostracized loser... er... I mean loner all the time anyway so
that doesn't bother me as much as it might other people.

>
> Dan:
>
>
>> It isn't about convincing people that there is something better. No
>> one cares. They already know all about that. Rather, the values
>> espoused by the MOQ seemed aimed at those who are open to the
>> possibility that their conception of the world might be lacking some
>> fundamental insight.
>>
>>
> John:  Like a sort of therapy for smart people stuck in the social
> double-bind?  That's good!  I like that Dan.  Maybe that's how it ought to
> be taught - to psychoanalysts and such.

Dan:
I've always hesitated to think of myself as a smart person. I'm not.
What I know compared to what I do not know might be likened to a grain
of sand on a endless beach. So I always wondered why if I could get
through not only ZMM but Lila too, then why do those who are so much
more knowledgeable about the world fail?

I think some people are too smart for their own good. Since they
already know so much, they become closed off to the possibility of
learning anything outside the boundaries of that knowledge. And other
folk simply are not interested in broadening their horizons. They have
reached a sort of comfort zone which they are reluctant to leave.

>
>
>
>> >[John]
>> > Honestly one of the biggest reasons I craved another book out of Pirsig
>> and
>> > was so eager to read Lila when it came out was an answer to the question:
>> > why has nothing changed?
>>
>> Dan:
>> Look at it this way: we are submerged in culture. It's like looking in
>> the mirror every day. Nothing changes. But when we meet an old friend
>> we haven't seen for decades, my god! They look so old! Guess what? We
>> look old to them too. Yet because we see that same image every day,
>> nothing changes.
>>
>> >[John]
>> > Platt inspired me by bringing up the fact that Pirsig said that the
>> > American Indian Way is closer to Quality than we are, and look how well
>> > they've done.  IF SOM is superior to the MOQ in the matter of power
>> > politics, then it doesn't matter how much better the MOQ is, it's going
>> to
>> > fail regardless.  Right is made by might.
>>
>> Dan:
>> This is the same guy who read a fiction novel and declared global
>> warming is a farce. Come on. Platt farts dust. Talk about nothing ever
>> changing...
>>
>> Be that as it may, subject/object metaphysics had nothing to do with
>> the decimation of the Indians. Gunpowder, bullets, disease, and
>> alcohol all played a role. Subject/object metaphysics is a collection
>> of intellectual quality patterns that describes the world. Politics is
>> a collection of social quality patterns that guides a culture.
>>
>>
> J:  Global warming (or climate change) is a topic that is more complex than
> whether or not it is real.  I've discussed this with Platt and we agree the
> real question is what best to be done about it.  But that's another topic.
>
> Gunpowder, bullets, disease and alcohol are the fruits of a SOM influenced
> culture.  The fact that this culture sweeps all others away is a troubling
> problem for me - and the MoQ.

Dan:
>From what I understand, gunpowder was invented in ancient China, which
was not a culture under the sway of subject/object thinking. Disease
is a biological level value which again isn't under the sway of
subject/object thinking, as is alcohol. Guns only came about because
gunpowder was available. Otherwise we might still be shooting arrows
at each other... not necessarily a bad thing.

So I think your argument falls apart.

>
>
> Dan comments:
>
>> You are here to do more than merely learn the MOQ because you've
>> already learned it. Some of us lesser mortals here find that painful.
>> I assumed that was a dig at me and perhaps David Buchanan but who
>> knows. Anyway, if I misread your intention, I apologize.
>>
>>
> J:  I don't like causing pain.  I've been intensely interested in this
> discussion for how many years?  15 at least.  My point about Pirsig's
> writings is that they are easy to understand and well-written.  I was
> introduced to ZAMM in 1980  so that's been 34 years of thinking and
> learning.  I've still got a lot to learn, I agree, but I wish I could get
> across the idea that I'm not an idiot without sounding arrogant.  That's a
> toughie.

Dan:
I've noticed most of the extremely intelligent people I know do not
have to tell anyone that they're smart.

>
>
> Dan:
>> I carefully clothed my remarks with the qualifier "might be wrong"
>> because yes, Ham is a very intelligent fellow. But when it comes to
>> the MOQ, I am fairly certain that he is clueless.
>
>
> J:  Maybe he's just a provocateur.  It's hard to imagine somebody that
> persistent as clueless.

Dan:
Persistent about his own agenda, maybe, but not about the MOQ.

>
> Dan:
>
>
>> He just doesn't
>> care.
>
>
> J:  And it's impossible to imagine him as uncaring.  Persistence for sure
> indicates caring.

Dan:
Again, he doesn't care about the MOQ. I challenge you to read any of
his contributions here and tell me that he understands the least
fundamental idea about it.

>
> Dan:
>
>
>
>> On the other hand, David Buchanan has been at this as long as I
>> have. He has as good a grasp of the MOQ as anyone. He cares. So, who
>> would you rather have in agreement with you?
>>
>>
> J:  Everybody, actually.  I think unity is a worthy goal.  Especially in
> such a small band of travelers.

Dan:
I suspect that would make for a dull discussion but since it is
unlikely to happen, no worries.

>
>
>
>
>> >
>> > D:
>> >
>> >
>> >> It has always been my opinion that until I understand the foundations
>> >> of whatever project I'm attempting, I have no hope of improving upon
>> >> it. I don't mean to be critical, but from what I've seen and despite
>> >> your protestations, you do not understand the MOQ.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > J:  Well, you might be right.  But it seems to me that if you are its a
>> > terrible condemnation.  Not of me, but of the MOQ.  If something is so
>> > mysterious, so impenetrable that a smart guy can spend over 25 years
>> > enthusiastically studying and adopting it as a basis for his life - and
>> > still not understand it, then that's a very confusing and confused
>> > metaphysical system.
>>
>> Dan:
>> There is nothing mysterious about the MOQ. As I said, I am not a
>> particularly sharp guy. Granted, I've never done anything so grandiose
>> as to attempt to adopt it to my way of life. I always assumed the MOQ
>> was more of a barometer, a moral compass, if you will, than a set of
>> hard and fast rules for living.
>>
>> >[John]
>> > But I find Pirsig to be very clear and understandable and I don't have
>> any
>> > trouble understanding him.  I do have trouble making myself clear
>> > sometimes.  Perhaps that is where the trouble lies.
>>
>> [Dan]
>> I have all kinds of problems. Not only do I find it difficult to make
>> myself understood, but my reading comprehension is lacking. The first
>> step toward improvement, however, is to recognize the deficiency.
>>
>>
> J:  The 2nd step is to work at it.  To my mind our discussion here,
> weighing terms and analyzing relations between the parts is the best work
> there is.   I'd like to do that too.

Dan:
I guess for me this isn't work. It is a challenge to formulate these
thoughts and get them down but I do enjoy it.

>
>>
>> J:  But as I said Dan, these values would be empty without individuals to
>> fill them up.
>>
>> Here's a handy definition to start with:  Social patterning is the rules
>> and laws which bind individuals into larger entities.  Does that work with
>> your understanding of the MOQ's 3rd level?  I'd be glad to hear a
>> correction on this.
>> Even tho I am confident of my grasp of the MOQ, I'm always glad to hone
> and
>> refine.
>
> Dan:
>> Social quality patterns are comprised of value: celebrity, fame,
>> fortune. The rules that arise as a result of those values oppose and
>> suppress lower level biological quality patterns like sex and violence
>> but they are not to be confused with individuals.
>>
>>
> J:  I have a hard time divorcing the idea of the individual completely from
> the patterns.

Dan:
People are never divorced from the patterns. People are the patterns.
What the MOQ is saying is that social patterns are not made up of
groups of humans. Perhaps I could have been clearer by saying groups
of individuals but the 's' at the end seemed to signify that.

[John]
> Without living, breathing people

[Dan]
Biological patterns.

[John}
> to observe,

[Dan]
Intellectual patterns.

[John]
> we wouldn't see
> patterns of value like sex, violence, celebrity, fame and fortune.

[Dan]
Social patterns.

[John]
>  So I
> fail to see the utility of analyzing the patterns while ignoring the
> individuals.

Dan:
The MOQ does not ignore the individual. We are the patterns.

[John]
> Perhaps we are mired in a confusion of name vs
> object-of-thought.  I don't know.  It bears some further discussion but
> right now I hear my duty calling.  I've got to make a bunch of frames for
> Lu who has an art show coming up.

[Dan]
Awesome! Artists are the coolest people.

>
>[John]
> I'm gonna snip the rest and put it into a drafts box for future discussion
> upon the nature of the relation between the idea of a social pattern and
> the idea of an individual.  I think there's a lot there.

[Dan]
Sounds good. Don't let me die here.

>[John]
> Thanks Dan, for the good talk,

You're welcome, John. Thank you too.

Dan

http://www.danglover.com