RE: MD good conversations

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Dec 01 2002 - 19:14:24 GMT

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: MD "Mystical Experience" and static interpretations."

    Mari, Sam and all conversationalists:

    Mari said:
    "disagree"? i hope you don't take this as nit picking but it's best to ask i
    do believe: Can conversation be "good" when two or more people are agreeing
    on something?

    DMB says:
    Probably goes without saying, but I will anyway. I'm not talking about any
    kind of universal standard, just my personal preferences. Also, I'm not
    talking about the kind of conversation I'd have with my wife, son or
    employer. In this case I'm talking about discussions about books and ideas
    with folks who love such things. The best conversation I can recall occured
    around a camp fire and lasted about 8 hours. We even had a small audience.
    But more to the point, in my experience it is more fun and educational to
    talk with folks who challenge me in some way and so agreement tends to be
    less "educational", if you will. A couple of weeks ago I got to talking
    politics with a friend whose views are very close to mine, so we consciously
    searched for something on which we disagreed. That's when the fun began.

    Mari asked:
    Can human beings have "conversations" with themselves?

    DMB says:
    Yea, we CAN, but we ought not do it in the presence of a mental health
    professional. Just kidding. If you're refering to an internal dialogue,
    contemplation or meditation, I'd say certainly. We need to talk with
    ourselves. Personally, I can't go very long without getting some quiet "head
    space". I get very cranky without it. I don't golf and I don't have a sail
    boat, but I have ways.

    Mari says:
    i'm also wondering if 4th level ( awareness? consciousness? ability?
    capability? ) would allow one to participate in a "good conversation" about
    virtually anything if one is interested and inclined to do so without being
    pre"informed" of the topic (subject).

    DMB says:
    I think not. And I think any intellectual person worth their salt would
    refrain from expressing uninformed opinions. If you want to hear ignorant
    opinions, just listen to talk radio. This is low quality stuff by any
    measure. Books have been written about Rush Limbaugh, for example, that
    clearly show he is often NOT in posession of the facts AND doesn't know what
    to do with facts either. A philosophy professor wrote one showing RL's many
    lapses in logic, specious reasoning, and all kinds of irrationalities.

    Perhaps i'm looking for more "grokking" here at times so the information can
    be applied to more practical matters if you will. ( How does MoQ work in our
    everyday matters such as electing a president

    DMB says:
    I don't know about "grokking", but I certainly think the MOQ can be applied
    to an understanding of the real world, including politics and everything
    else. Pirsig spends lots of time discussing the political history of the
    20th century and I've found over the last few years that his take on it is
    very useful. (I've won a couple hundred dollars betting on political events
    like elections and such. No kidding.) If I remember Heinlien rightly, such
    things would be over and done by the time we finished grokking, which can
    take years.

    Mari said:
    As far as the statement:
    "intellectually she's nowhere"
    Was this a perpetual state of being or something like temporary insanity;
    something she drifts in and out of? Which again makes me want to ask: Once
    you reach 4th level is that where we always and all ways come from?

    DMB says:
    A perpetual state? She's fictional of course, but I suppose most people are
    constantly in a state of flux and growth, so we'd hope that she could grow
    out of it. Its easy to imagine that mental illness can produce a regression,
    so its possible to imagine that she once was intellectually somewhere, but I
    don't think so. Pirsig's description of Lila's lack of intellect was
    included to demonstrate what a person dominated by biological values looks
    like in real life. She's a fleshed out hypothetical example, if you will.
    The second part of your question requires a more subtle answer. As I keep
    trying to point out, a person at the fourth level, by definition, is also
    part of the three previous levels. The scene where Lila and the Captain
    have sex shows that intellectuals can go down there too. Similarly, while in
    the hotel room in NY city, he talks about how he's not just intellectual,
    but also a member of the society and participates in "The Giant". In short,
    a fourth level person is not just one dimensional, but is part of ALL four
    levels. As I put it to Sam, he's a taller guy, not a disembodied head. So
    intellectuals can't "always and all ways" be intellectual. Sometimes they
    gotta get down and get jiggy wid it. Intellectuals have to participate in
    the society and obey the law like everybody else. See what I mean?

    Thanks.

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 01 2002 - 19:15:06 GMT