From: Erin N. (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Sat Feb 08 2003 - 21:10:31 GMT
>===== Original Message From moq_discuss@moq.org =====
>Hi David and all,
>
> As virtually always David, you present a scholarly
>"argument" no matter what the subject line may be. So does Matt and
>others... i learn, i think, i'm amused, (found myself really laughing
>out-loud at your excellent choice of words in your post in support of our
>man Horse.) "Great stuff" as you often say. i also find myself wondering
>what it is about this post and many other *great* posts that leaves me a
>little ( i'm going to call it *incomplete* for lack of a better word ). So
>i'm going to take a poke at presenting what i think it is that leaves me
>this way.
>
>You said: "......but I really think we have to admit that some
>> views are just plain stupid, while others are must closer to accurate. I
>> mean, if we can't tell the difference between a sound argument and a bogus
>> assertion, then why bother discussing it at all."
>
>When i read this i think "subjective" and "interpretive". And in this case i
>even agree with your statement. But i bet that if we looked at a list of
>posts here in the MoQdg there would be as much disagreement on what is or is
>not "stupid" or "a sound argument" or "bogus" as there would be agreement.
>The amount of disagreement is what puzzles me. The same "argument" goes
>round and round being called all kinds of different things in the name of
>MoQ discussion.
>
>Way back when i first read ZMM the thing that "made sense" to me and "gave
>me" what i saw as an excellent tool to filter out crappola was the idea of
>looking for and identifying what was "subjective" and "objective". This was
>my "subjective" "interpretation" of what i read. i put it to "practical use"
>when i stopped being so damn attached to my "take" vs someone else's "take".
>i looked, i listened, i asked questions, i adjusted "my" "subjective"
>"interpretation" accordingly, and used it as need be to make things work
>better becuase i didn't fight with and argue as much about things that had
>no "winning" reslove...roads with dead ends and bad feelings.
>
>Some one asked about "love" a few weeks back. After reading ZMM and applying
>the lesson learned from reading the book, my "interpretation" of love
>changed. An adage that i had heard before and never quite understood
>suddenly made sense to me. "In order to have love you need to let it go."
>When i "GOT IT" this meaning, my new "interpretation" it was like a light
>went off in my head. As long as i demand that love is "this" ( any name you
>want to call it): my subjective definition 'take", as long as i tried to
>"own" it or "have" it, it would escape me. It could not be owned. That
>became a metaphor for what i interpreted to be SOM. Now i understand that it
>may not be this to you or Matt or anyone else but it worked for me and it
>moved me to a new level of "Being". i didn't need to argue with you or
>anyone else about what it is/was. It changed my art and art work because it
>changed the way i saw things. i knew i knew, and i knew what i needed to do
>to allow it to be, and to flow was to know the difference between subjective
>and objective. ( Dynamic Quality ) "Love" happened when i let go of trying
>to know better than you what it is. If we could agree that it (Love) exists,
>then i don't think it serves any one or anything to hold on so tightly to
>their "interpretation" supported by quotes from books and old masters. The
>belief that you know love better than Matt or me or Straun or anyone even if
>it is "obvious" that their take is "stupid" is still only an
>"interpretation". What was it that Forrest Gump said "Stupid is as Stupid
>does" or somethign like that. What an idiot right?
>
>Then comes Lila. ( other things happened in-between but for illustration
>purposes i'll say it this way ) Now SOM is not best anymore according to
>Pirsig. i'm reading and doing a lot of "re-search" to help me understand.
>It's difficult to let go of this old "understanding" that when a human being
>starts "interpreting" a "thing" that "thing/object" becomes "subjective".
>Assigning labels and values to "it" strengthens the weakness. But i'm doing
>the best that i can to "understand" the new information presented in Lila.
>When i found MoQ.org i thought it would help me fit the new pieces into the
>old puzzle. MoQ has helped in some ways although not the ways i expected.
>
>Pirsig introduced me to some "good" "subjective" stuff. And there is other
>"Great stuff" out there and it has always made sense to me to use what works
>best. Being aware and "Notice what you notice" is helpful. Being strong but
>not too ridgid works well too. Not being so attached to the "I" in an
>ego-centric way also has it's benefits. Truth be known that is one reason
>why i never use an "I" when referring to myself.
>"I" pumps up the attachement to the "interpretation" static latches me to
>the "take". Ego knows best just ask the I. Notice what you notice. What are
>you fixated on? How do you label things? How attached are you to those
>labels?
>
>i think that if David and Matt for instance quit looking for good
>"arguments" and points to make and disagree about/on and instead looked to
>focus on what good could come from "agreement" ( not on everything ) but on
>a "practical goal" i think "Great Stuff" could take on a whole new look (
>move up a level )
>But from what i interpret people saying here in the MoQdg about this
>possibility of moving the MoQ into a different form of action, few here ( at
>least the good old boys ) don't want that to happen. They just want to
>"argue" and "discuss". Scott said something like: this is a discussion group
>that's what people come here for. i say: Okay, and that means what? It can't
>move into practical action? Deeds? i don't even know what to call it because
>someone is always ready to argue the meaning of everything.
>
>Did Pirsig write this book just so people could talk about it? i think it
>has greater potential than that. i wish a few people would say: okay I'm in,
>what can I do. At least then we might have a "subject" that will lead to
>something beside more argument.
>
>Sam wrote back to Squonk: "Hiya Squonk, (welcome back - you still seem
>incorrigibly rude, but that's
>your style and you're free to choose it)"
>Maybe that's what most of the old timers want: to discuss and to argue; it
>seems that way to me anyhow. There's nothing wrong with that in and of
>itself as there is nothing wrong with my wanting to move MoQ into "practical
>application" Maybe no one here is interested in that. If there is anyone
>beside Rudy, John From the Rock, and Dustin that think there's more to MoQ
>than what we find here most of the time i wish you would speak up;
>especially all of you who send me emails supporting my ideas in private.
>
>Mari
Mari,
I understand you find the arguing offensive and
and I don't think you don't intend your posts to be
offensive but it is starting to be that way
for me. These comments about not interested in
practical application of MoQ to the world
is offensive. You say you want me to ask 'what to do'.
Ask WHO what to do, Mari, Pirsig? What if I ask myself what to do everyday...
am I not applying MoQ to the world?
If you intended that as we should ask ourselves,
why would you ASSume that we are not doing that
already. (especially when people tell you that they
are)
Erin
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 : Sat Feb 08 2003 - 21:02:16 GMT