[MD] Post-Intellectualism

[Dan Glover]

John,

On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 2:01 PM, John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> Good Monday morn Dan,

Good Friday evening, John!

>
>> >
>> > Dan:
>> >
>> > But paying for a review smacks of coercion. Am I going to lie to my
>> >> potential readers in order to sell books. No. And no reputable author
>> >> will.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Jc:  I'll kidnap them and tie them up and make them listen... Nah, jk.  I
>> > don't know how to write to bunches of people I don't know.  Too much back
>> > explanation required.
>>
>> Dan:
>> Just write to one person then.
>>
>
> Jc:  Yes, I think that is key.  Especially for me.  I'm not good at
> addressing groups in print.  I don't do too bad at public speaking, when I
> can get instant feedback on the reactions to my words, but print is a
> distance communication.

Dan:
I always write to one person: me. If my (and I use that term loosely)
words make me feel something, then perhaps they'll do the same with
other people too. There is nothing distant about that.

>
>
>>
>> > Jc:  It can't.  That's the paradox.   Each side of the self/reality
>> > dichotomy can be used against stuckness on the other side.    If they are
>> > stuck in self, you argue their reality and if they are stuck in reality(
>> as
>> > in scientific materialism)  you point them to their definition of self
>> and
>> > point to it's weakness as a postulate.
>>
>> Dan:
>> Well, I can see why Ciarin doesn't come to moq.discuss. They'd tear
>> the poor guy apart. Not me, of course. They.
>>
>>
> Jc:  :)
>
> I've been seeing his name pop up in a blog I read - Just Four Men. I don't
> know if its the same guy, but it seems like him.  He's a good writer, I'll
> give him that.  And there was a definite Pirsigian angle to his tale of
> going to school to study philosophy and being unable to get anyone to
> actually engage him and his ideas.  They were all "we're not here to learn
> what YOU think".  I bet that's pretty common, actually.

Dan:
Well, I'm guessing if a person enrolls in a Philosophy 101 course they
aren't going into it planning on learning what another student
thinks... they want to learn what the great philosophers think.

If you genuinely believe you have something to say, then you either A)
become a professor and teach others, or B) write a book. You don't
piss and moan because no one in your philosophy course wants to know
what you think. Guess what: they don't! Get over it.

>
>>
>> Dan:
>>> You're talking about two different levels... snap reflexes so far as
>>> animals go relate to biological patterns. Philosophers and their ideas
>>> relate to intellectual patterns.
>>>
>>>
>> Jc:  Ok, but if we're walking in the woods, and we hear a heavy snapping
> of
>> brush, our cultural definitions shoot the word "bear" into our
>> consciousness and we have a history of seeing bears in this section and
> our
>> biology shoots adrenaline into our bloodstream and I doubt if much
>> philosophophizing gets done at the time, because philosophy, or reflective
>> thought, which we call intellectual thinking, is disconnected, to a
> certain
>> extent, from the immediate now.  But everything else, in an individual,
>> doesn't happen in levels - it just happens.
>>
>> I don't know what that has to do with what we were talking about, but its
>> interesting to me.  I never thought of it quite like that.  The hot stove
>> analogy reminded me -there are no levels in nature, only in an
> intellectual
>> scheme which creates them.  But once created, they have to mesh with
>> experience.  All static things decay and die, including static
> intellectual
>> patterns unless the impetus of experience, keeps them alive.  When they
>> stiffen (into religion) they lose their dynamic touch and die.
>>
>> Ye who are anti-religious, beware of making a religion out of it.
>
> Dan:
>> This is a bit of an aside but I've been considering something for a
>> few days now and your words reminded me of it just now:
>>
>> If there is a genuine need, it will be met.
>>
>> I don't pretend to understand this statement but I know it is true. In
>> fact, I'm pretty sure I have never come across a truer statement in my
>> life. But to me, the statement doesn't reflect the same truth that it
>> might for others. What do I mean by that?
>>
>> We do not possess Quality. Quality possesses us. So to 'have' a
>> genuine need is a misnomer. Read the statement again. If there is a
>> genuine need, it will be met. Most people read this and proceed to
>> make fun of it. They say: oh, I need this and I need that but I never
>> receive it so the statement is just a lot of rot. What they don't stop
>> to realize is: the statement doesn't say if you 'have' a need, it will
>> be met.
>>
>> What is a genuine need? And who or what is 'it' that meets that need?
>> I think that ties in with the intellectual schemes that you mentioned
>> but it also depends upon the context and the cultural mores that
>> surround the questioning. Most people want to know what's in it for
>> them. Period.
>>
>> Someone here mentioned Alan Watts. I don't recall who it was and I'm
>> too lazy to look back and see. Anyway, if you check out his book: The
>> Book: The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are:
>>
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Book-Taboo-Against-Knowing-Who-ebook/dp/B005LALG9S/ref=sr_sp-atf_title_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1401662664&sr=1-1&keywords=allan+watts+books
>>
>> you'll find this excerpt which I find apropos here:
>>
>> "Coming to our senses must, above all, be the experience of our own
>> existence as living organisms rather than “personalities,” like
>> characters in a play or a novel acting out some artificial plot in
>> which the persons are simply masks for a conflict of abstract ideas or
>> principles. Man as an organism is to the world outside like a
>> whirlpool is to a river: man and world are a single natural process,
>> but we are behaving as if we were invaders and plunderers in a foreign
>> territory."
>>
>> Dan comments:
>>
>> If there is a genuine need, it will be met. See? There is no us
>> against them, no human vs the world... there is only genuine needs
>> being met. To me, that is the beauty of the MOQ... it informs us that
>> we are not separate beings standing apart from the world of objects.
>>
>> Rather than continually striving against the river, jump into it
>> bodily and boldly.
>>
>> End of aside...
>>
>>
> Jc:   Nice.  Another book I got at the same time as ZAMM and Alan Watts was
> Jacob Needleman's Sense of the Cosmos.  He puts it like this:
>
> "Plato, we may recall, understood by the word eros a striving for a new
> creation through participation in something more fundamentally beautiful
> and real....And then there is that most mysterious of ideas: God is love.
> How are we to untangle all this?  How can we begin to approach the idea
> that love is a property of reality, whether we call that reality God or the
> great universe?  Unless we  find some way into this idea we shall
> inevitably remain stranded with the sundry modern psychological
> perspectives on love: as something which affirms the ego or gratifies
> sexual need."

Dan:
Unfortunately when I look into books like this, I inwardly cringe,
just like I do when I read articles telling me that 42% of Americans
don't believe in evolution and instead insist the earth is less than
10,000 years old. Do you see the damage that religion can do?

Well, perhaps I should word that differently. It isn't religion itself
that is problematical but rather the people who take a fundamentalist
view of documents like the bible or the koran or any book thought to
be the word of god.

Jacob Needleman might have written a great book but I don't appreciate
anyone ramming god down my throat. I always choke on it.

>
>
>
>>> Jc:  Interpretation is the will in the present, to understand some past,
>>> with an eye toward the future.
>>>
>>> That's Royce.  Does it harmonize with Pirsig at all?  I keep wondering.
>>
>> Dan:
>>> I would say that according to the MOQ, interpretation is always in the
>>> past, not the present. This unfolding moment correlates to direct
>>> experience, or Dynamic Quality.
>>>
>>>
>> Jc:  There is the interpretation and then there is the act of interpreting
>> and  Royce was talking about the latter rather than former because it's
>> interpretation which translates the memories of the past, right now, for
>> some future end or goal.  You can't have an interpretation without a past,
>> or without an act of will in the present, toward some projected future.
>> The act of will is a moral act, and Royce like Pirsig holds to a moral
>> cosmology, and like Pirsig, to the theoretical nature of philosophy.  All
>> we can do is paint pictures and hang them in a gallery.  There is no
>> absolute object to copy and get right.
>
> Dan:
>> The interpretation is the past, that includes act of will, the
>> projected future, and anything else we know. Interpretation is always
>> static quality. The 'now' is direct experience before the
>> intellectualization, before the interpretation. In other words,
>> Dynamic Quality.
>>
>>
> Jc:  How about this then, the act of interpreting is the act of caring.
>
>> Jc:   I'm sure there is a way to approach pouring concrete artistically,
>> but in the economic world that pays for the concrete on a big job, all
> that
>> matters is getting it done before the stuff sets and getting it done
> right.
>>   The boss paying the wages, likes a good profit so there's not a lot of
>> people to help and  there's a lot of hard labor to be done and a feeling
> of
>> satisfaction at the end of the day.  But when you do a couple a week, for
>> years, you don't sign your name to the thing.  Craftsmanship is a source
> of
>> pride, but it's not art.  And I really don't see any way it rationally
>> could be, since the aims are so different.  Craftsmanship has social
> goals,
>> art aims at the highest level there is and is largely an individual thing.
>> Does that mean its more moral to be a painter than a brick mason?
>>
>> Not at all, because life isn't just one level or another.  Life is the
>> levels in balanced harmony.
>
> Dan:
>> I would say that most craftsmen, like the welder in ZMM, have glossed
>> over the artistry of their work. They do what they do and that's it.
>> They grow used to their work not being noticed. When someone
>> compliments them on a job well done, like the narrator does in ZMM,
>> it's almost like they think they're being made fun of. That doesn't
>> mean what they do and do well is not art. They've simply forgotten
>> that.
>>
>>
> Jc:  I would say rather, that they have forgotten the part of them that is
> an artist.

Dan:
I don't think you can separate the person and the artist. I mentioned
this before in reference to something Arlo said about how artists
should be classified by their art. I disagreed then and I disagree
now.

In the work-a-day world it is too easy to forget the artistry in one's
endeavors, but that doesn't mean they have forgotten how to be an
artist.

>
>
>
>>
>> > Jc:  Anything can be art, but everything can't be art.  That would  make
>> > the term meaningless.
>>
>> Dan:
>> Sure. Art arises through caring. Some people just don't care.
>>
>
>
> Jc:  A craftsman cares, that's for sure.  It's just that his scope of
> caring is very limited, like intellect itself.  His parameters are
> precisely defined by objective considerations.  +/- defined tolerances.
> Within those parameters, he takes artistic care - that is, the same kind of
> caring that an artist takes and by "artist"  I mean one who specialized in
> expanded (expanding) parameters.  Craftsmen are playing a finite game,
> Artists an infinite one.

Dan:
I don't know a thing about painting but I have a hankering to do some
watercolors. From what I understand about it so far, the painter is
not unbounded by art but constrained by it, both by the medium they
choose and their individual skill set. I would say the same applies
for craftsmen too.

>
>
>>
>> >
>> >>> Dan:
>> >>> I think Dynamic Quality becomes synonymous with experience in the MOQ.
>> >>> I know... I've said it before but it's worth repeating. There are no
>> >>> absolutes in the MOQ, including Dynamic Quality.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> Jc:  There may not be explicit absolutes, but the will of Bob sure
>> >> instantiates as such implicitly, don't you think?
>> >
>> > Dan:
>> >> I think Robert Pirsig says somewhere that the MOQ will work until
>> >> something better comes along. He has always struck me as a pretty
>> >> self-effacing guy and I somehow doubt he would appreciate his words
>> >> being taken as absolute, either explicitly or implicitly.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Jc:  A man has the right to own the integrity of his  work, especially
>> when
>> > that work IS a work of art.  Something better than the MoQ?  Fine, but
>> the
>> > MoQ made better?  Or different?  It's like leaning over a painter's
>> > shoulder and "improving" the brushstrokes.  It's rude.  But isn't that
>> what
>> > we do with philosophers?  All the time?  After all, that's what keeps
>> them
>> > alive.  That's what keeps Plato alive, after all these years.   I think
>> > Pirsig is pretty amazing and even moreso, for tossing his philosophy into
>> > the ring like he did.  Lila's child was an incredible thing, when you
>> think
>> > about it.
>>
>> Dan:
>>
>> Lila's Child changed my life so I'm probably prejudiced, but yes, it
>> was and it is an incredible thing. Until Mr. Pirsig took an active
>> interest in my work, I had no incentive to write. Now, I do.
>> Everything has changed. There are some debts that cannot be repaid,
>> and that's one.
>>
>>
> Jc:  I agree, and I disagree.  The debt can be repaid and you're doing so
> by writing yourself.  A good writer is paid in the attention of a good
> reader, and you are a good reader, Dan.
>
> But even more repaid, by being incorporated into future writing.  Bob wrote
> about Plato, thus keeping Plato "alive"  Some future Plato, some day,
> writes about Bob and his-story continues.  That's paid back.  You are  part
> of the paying process.

Dan:
Sure, there is paying it forward. I understand that. That's why I
actively encourage others to explore their art work.

>
>
>>
>> >>> >John:
>> >>> > Altho to be sure, Royce defines Absolute, as the past.  Whatever has
>> >>> > been done, has been done forever and permanently and thus SQ = the
>> >>> > past and thus SQ = the absolute.  So I need to work on it, I know.
>> >>> > But isn't that what we're all here for?
>> >>>
>> >>> Dan:
>> >>> I disagree. The past is always being altered.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> Jc:  No, I disagree.  Even if there are no other absolutes, the past is
>> >> absolute.  You may alter your memory of an event, but any event,
>> > happening,
>> >> has absolutely  happened.  There's some doubt about Shrodinger's cat,
>> > until
>> >> it's dead, then its dead.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Dan:
>> >> I just read that Tupac is alive and well and living in eastern
>> >> Pennsylvania with Elvis and Schrodinger's cat. :-)
>> >>
>> >> The past is forever shifting and changing with the times. The
>> >> conqueror writes the history, not the vanquished. For a hundred years
>> >> or better it was known as the Battle of Wounded Knee rather than the
>> >> massacre it was. That is not an isolated incident.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Jc:  You see, you argue that the past was truly different than the
>> > explanations given you as a child, and you are right.  The actual past,
>> is
>> > the absolute that we try and formulate with our conceptions and
>> teachings.
>> > In a sense, it's an unattainable absolute because we can't go back and
>> > bring it again, altho electronic media mimics the sounds and images of
>> the
>> > past, it's important to remember that those are imitations, and the real
>> > past is something that we have to work out with other people and we can
>> > only get close, never exactly there.
>> >
>> > It's an interesting viewpoint, I have to say.
>>
>> Dan:
>> I would say there is no 'real' past. The past is what we make it. Like
>> all our perceptions, the past is filtered through our cultural lens.
>>
>>
> Jc:   Any present you can conceptualize in, is "past" by the time you
> conceptualize it.  So in a sense, all knowledge is past.  But that doesn't
> mean it's "only in your head".

Dan:
That isn't what I said. In the MOQ, only social and intellectual
patterns are all in the head, so to speak. So it depends on what type
of knowledge you're talking about.

> JC:
> So is reality, but that doesn't make it
> "only".  But I agree, reality is filtered through our cultural leans.
> Therefore the  past is the same as reality.

Dan:
Again, that depends on what reality you are talking about.

> JC:
> But there's more to reality
> than the past!  This fits so well, all of our experience and it also
> illustrates DQ.  If the past is SQ, then DQ is the future.

Dan:
I don't think so. The future is an intellectualization based upon the
past. Dynamic Quality becomes synonymous with experience in the MOQ.
Direct experience comes first but it is not the future.

> JC:
> The future is
> undefined. it isn't a simple derivative of the past, for there is an act of
> will, in between the two. Where both come into being.  An act of will that
> is fundamentally ethical in nature.

Dan:
The future is always defined just as the past. Both exist as remnants
of direct experience.

>
>
>
>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> Dan:
>> >>> Well, if you mean the grass is always greener on the other side of the
>> >>> fence, no. That is the danger of desiring something better. Once we
>> >>> obtain the fruits of that desire, we often times discover we are
>> >>> wrong.
>> >>>
>> >>> Just do what needs doing.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> Jc:  the only "need" is betterness.  :)
>> >> If there is no urge for betterness, there is certainly no doing.
>> >
>> > Dan:
>> >
>> >> When we begin to artfully engage the world, we start to see the
>> >> futility of seeking to better anything.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Jc:  I don't know, Dan.  When I scratch an itch, it seems better to me
>> that
>> > it doesn't itch anymore.  Peace of mind is a goal, because so often
>> > something comes to our attention that we want to affect and we don't get
>> > peace of mind until its done.  If it was all futile, I don't think I'd
>> have
>> > peace of mind about THAT.
>>
>> Dan:
>> If you have an itch, scratch it. If you're hungry, eat. If you're
>> thirsty, drink. If something needs doing, do it. To me, that's peace
>> of mind. That is the essence of artful engagement with the world.
>>
>>
> Jc:  If it feels good, do it.
>
> Dan!  I didn't know you were a hippy, I thought you were a cowboy?

Dan:
Save a horse, ride a cowboy... that's my motto, at least to all the
women, that is. :-)

>JC:
> The problem is, you have to have some background.  "if something needs
> doing" is a judgement that comes with experience and calls for a sacrifice
> of selfish interests to dive in and get it done.  Not to mention a load of
> gumption.

Dan:
I suppose that depends on the person.

>JC:
> I agree with you, basically.  But its not as simple as it seems.

Dan:
It is as simple or complex as you make it.

>
>
> Dan:
>
> Now, lots of people tend to think my life isn't what they believe it
>> should be so they offer me little tidbits of well-meant advice. Most
>> of the time, I smile and nod and pretend I'm listening.
>>
>
> Jc:  You and I have that i n common.
>
> Dan:
>
>
>>
>> They desire something better for me, bless them. I realize that. On
>> the other hand, they have no idea about the path I'm on. They presume
>> that they know about my path simply because they believe they know me.
>> They believe I am just like them. I'm not.
>>
>>
> Jc:  I think that comes from all those Tv's  and lack of books.  People do
> tend to have a monolithic view of what life should be like, and it comes
> from everybody tuned into the similar stations.  Sure, "Leave it to Beaver"
> has evolved into "Two Men and a Boy" But the principle remains that those
> are the observed culture-bearers of our times.  And they're all insanely
> materialistically oriented.    I know I'm over-reacting to it all, but
> somehow that seems to be the right thing to do, in the moment.

Dan:
There is a looking glass that works both ways, but only for the adept.
I get the feeling that the culture bearers for our time are not
sitting in front of television sets and talking about what they
watched the next day.

>
> Dan:
>
>
>> If I perceive something better, I know it right off. I don't have to
>> seek for it. On the other hand, when I begin casting about for
>> something better, watch out. Odds are I'll only be fooling myself.
>>
>>
>
> Jc:  Maybe.  But it's a satisfying kind of fooling.

Dan:
I don't know about that. It is hard for me to find satisfaction in
disappointment but that's just me.

>
>> >
>> > Dan:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> Rather, by doing what is
>> >> needed, by cultivating compassion, and by recognizing our inability to
>> >> foresee the future no matter how prescient we had heretofore believed
>> >> we were, we tend to allow the grass to grow by itself.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Jc:  you picked on a sore spot with me.  I live in a community where I
>> have
>> > to keep the landlord, and my wife, happy, and they don't like long grass.
>> > I explain how it's better for the butterflies and the bees and the soil
>> and
>> > water retention and all the other plants and the garden and the birds.
>>  But
>> > they say its ugly, so I mow it, even tho I hate doing so.  But when I'm
>> > done, I have to admit it does look good.  And I've comprimised by letting
>> > it grow pretty long between mowings and not doing the edges.
>>
>> Dan:
>> Ha!  Man after my own heart. I prefer nature and all its glory.
>> Luckily, a good deal of my yard is privacy fenced so I mow what shows
>> and allow what I call my backyard garden to grow on its own. It's a
>> jungle, mostly, but I love it. Birds of all sorts are attracted to the
>> 'weeds' that grow tall and luxuriously and not just during the warm
>> months either. During the winter flocks of tiny multicolored finches
>> live out there feeding off the seeds still clinging to the old growth.
>> I also have a rescue raccoon that hangs out back there but I rarely
>> see her except during the full moon.
>>
>> Jc:  Somewhere I saw this woman living in Minnesota with her front yard
> like that, a jungle of "weeds" and she had to keep all kinds of signs up
> for the neighbors about it being a bee sanctuary.  She couldn't have gotten
> away with it in North Dakota, I don't think.  Neighbors are pretty rigid
> about how the neighborhood is supposed to look.
>
> I confess there is a beauty in a garden, that is beyond compare and even
> the animals know this - they flock to a gardern that is well-though out and
> fecund.  The trick is to change the land slowly, a few changes at a time
> and in harmony with what is already growing.  Weeds are the information
> carriers to the gardener which tranmit the ideas of what will grow well
> there.  Gardening is the ultimate art - lifelong and infinitely expansive
> and inclusive.
>

Dan:
I thought you were going to write something about that. See, I might
get some use out of it. I put virtually no thought into my backyard
garden. Whatever grows there, grows there. I don't plant anything nor
do I uproot anything either. I've an area where I tend to sit and for
some reason the plants seem to recognize that and don't try to crowd
me out. I think that's good of them.

Some years ago I bought a second hand book on wild herbs in Illinois
and while I think I can identify a good twenty of them, I've yet to
actually make an art of harvesting and using them. I know broad-leaf
plantain and burdock are well known medicinal plants as are dandelions
and ginger root and all of them grow out there.

Time... I need more time...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Jc;  And when we apply our human words, to non-human nature, we are prone
>> to mistaken interpretation.  Is my point.
>
> Dan:
>> If you understand science at all, then you know mistakes are the norm.
>> That's how we learn. Old theories are constantly being replace with
>> new ones. And really, the only way we can interpret nature is through
>> our humanness, so to speak.
>>
>>
> Jc:  Right here, is where my entry point into the problem of values in the
> first place.  The Arrogance of Humanism.  It's not that we have anything
> better than our human reason, to figure out the world, its how much
> confidence we place in human reason, as our source of values.  Nature
> didn't obtain values from human reason, human reason obtains values from
> nature.  Those values are the heart of our evolutionary being.  So first,
> do no harm.  Respect.

Dan:
We are all human here, unless perchance there are toasters and
microwaves out there reading these words. Human values are what we
have to work with. I don't disagree with you but neither do I see any
alternative.

>JC:
> I got into it with Arlo a bit, on the subject of humanism but I have to
> mention to you all, that Eherenfeld predicted three consequences of
> Humanism that have come true:  The inevitability  of nuclear power plant
> accidents - because all factors cannot be controlled (this was also
> confirmed by subsequent chaos theory) 2.  The losing race between
> antibiotics and staphylococcus. (he was an MD)  3.  Greenhouse gases
> affecting our planetary weather.  So I think he was pretty right on, after
> all this time.

Dan:
Oddly, number one is directly related to number three in that nuclear
power is not a source of greenhouse gases. Are there going to be
accidents? Sure. I don't think it takes a genius to figure that out.
And so far as number 2 goes, everything in moderation. I know folk who
routinely pop antibiotics every time they sneeze... smart people too.
They don't seem to understand the consequences and when I say
something  they look at me like I'm the crazy one.

Unless we all go back to living in caves and beating each other over
the head with clubs, this is the world we've got.

>
>> Nature is more a codependency, than a competition.  Competition is a human
>> > term.
>>
>> Dan:
>> Competition doesn't mean to utterly defeat one another. Rather, it
>> tends to make all parties stronger and more resilient. Now, when you
>> start talking about the monarch butterfly, you have to bring Monsanto
>> into the equation. We don't see monarchs in this part of the country
>> any longer, thanks to the prolific use of weedkiller which has wiped
>> out all the milkweed plants that used to flourish here.
>>
>>
> Jc:  That's good, right?  Man has won the competition against butterflies,
> and milkweed.
>
> I just don't think competition is the right term for the way levels
> interact and resonate.  Intellectual science is not in competition with
> biological beings. It's more complicated than that.  Competition is a term
> that mainly pertains to social patterns.

Dan:
Intellectual patterns seek to usurp social patterns that enslave the
biological individual. They say knowledge is power. Instead of working
at Micky D's or Wally World or laying sleazy men for a quarter an hour
and no benefits, those with an education (even if they're self-taught,
mind you - think Maya Angelou) enable their lives to become something
better.

>
>
>>> Dan:
>> >> So now you're saying the MOQ is both a traditional and a bad
>> >> metaphysics? "...ethical ground of types" seems to correspond quite
>> >> nicely to what the MOQ is saying or perhaps I am misreading it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Jc:  Like I said, it's a certain interpretation of Pirsig I have problems
>> > with.  The MoQ itself, not so much.  But yes, I agree with what Randall
>> > Auxier saying about Royce, sounds a lot like Pirsig to me.  But then
>> there
>> > are many interpreters of Royce, who read him as an absolutist and that's
>> > not Pirsig at all.  But then, according to Auxier, neither is it Royce!
>> > Whew.  It's a good thing we have infinite time, to work all this out.
>>
>> Dan:
>> I've been on this list a long time and I have yet to see anyone else's
>> interpretation of the MOQ that I agree with. I think we come close
>> many times, and I also think each of us are blind to certain nuances
>> that others can lend us insight into.
>>
>>
> Jc:  True, but mystifying.  Why can't everybody just see it like I do?  Heh.

Dan:
Well, because we'd all be wrong then. :-)

Thanks John,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com