From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Fri Sep 19 2003 - 10:32:24 BST
Raine (?) ...
Throwaway mails like yours are absolutely essential dynamic inputs.
Do not feel the need to suggest that
MacMurphy amongst the Cuckoos,
Spacey amongst the Beauties,
Yossarian amidst his Catch22,
Pirsig amongst the Aristotelians,
The cat amongst the pigeons,
are merely "an aside".
You the have the whole point of MoQ on the nail.
More power to your elbow.
(Add Catch22, Brazil, 1984 and Fight Club to your list)
Hoping that wan't too "condescending"
Ian Glendinning
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of AgentRaine@aol.com
Sent: 18 September 2003 01:34
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: MD The Simpleminds just lurk...
In a message dated 9/17/2003 6:53:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
gjpeeters@home.nl writes:
Sometimes I can't follow the moq threads. They become to complex with to
many philosophy statements and names a beginner doesn't know. I'm mostly
reading the beginning of a thread, until my 'learning curve' gets to
steep.
I get blown away by the knowledgeburst most of you can ignite. I end up
reading posts that one can only understand if you have read a dozen
books
beforhand. I back out and start reading a new thread until the same
happens.
I experience it as a low-quality event not being able to have enough
gunpowder to join the forces.
i am in absolute agreement with you here. I have joined the moq thread
about two or three weeks ago and found myself unable to keep up. many of the
discussions do seem to turn into yes and no exercises. they are tiring, and
i have found them.. i hesitate to say... of low quality.
which sucks, because everyone had such interesting bio's when i joined the
thread. i just don't have the time to 'bone up' on all the philosophologist
lingo. which i just know i would have to make my reigning passion if i
actually wanted to take anything original i've ever thought of
philosophically out of the realm of dynamic quality (or shall i just say
'my' quality') and translate it into the realm of social/intellectual
quality... because let's face it.. philosophology is a little of both.
right now i'm too busy stuffing my head with architectural stuff trying to
get into school.
which brings me to my debutante paragraph, or what brought me here. which
is not only that Robert Pirsig helped me to intellectually deal with a
classic-romantic split that shook my family apart... but he helped me to
deal with the intellectual reasons why my emotionally blank structural
engineer dad might be rejecting my 'liberal arts' mentality. and Pirsig,
bless him, spoke clear and concisely, and *non condescendingly enough* to
bang this into my head when i was sixteen. not to mention spark an interest
in philosophy... but he did something great for me.. he helped bring ideas
together instead of taking them apart; he filled in the holes of the world
that didn't quite make sense. if that sounds like a wayward kid looking for
guidance from anywhere thats exactly what it was.
but what kept me going back... isn't what he says.. but how he thinks.. or
the spirit of how he thinks.. the greatest writers... the ones i devour...
sometimes i feel i could read their laundry list and be happy.. because
their genuis isn't just in what their words imply, for the world of men,
philosophy, whatever... its how their written. and the spirit that they're
written in... i feel closer to men i've never met than some people i see
every day. Robert Pirsig, Leonard Cohen, Ralph W. Emerson, T.S. Eliot.. to
name a few.. and those are just mine...
I know that i'm probably just intimidated by all of this... i don't mind
getting it in my inbox everyday. i follow the paths that are presented when
i have time. and sometimes following the paths is interesting. but
sometimes the landscape seems overall barren and lifeless.
i don't have to repeat the squirrel-around-a-tree anecdote from "Lila"
(yes i think Lila was better; i'm glad i found MOQ just to know that i'm not
alone) .. but neither am i going to provoke a topic of discussion. i'm
waaaaaay too intimidated for that. So carry on, as you were soldiers, just
wanted to respond to a fellow lurker....
as an aside: i have noticed that i love....absolutely love... movies where
the theme is the character discovering... (or being) the Dynamic Quality
that breaks up static social qualities... from MacMurphy in One Flew Over
the Cuckoo's Nest... to Spacey's character in American Beauty... to the
cubicle-bound hero of "Office Space"... all radically different films, all
about the same thing... dynamic quality stepping in and making a goddamned
mess of the place. if anyone else can name any movies that do the same.. i
know they're there but i can't remember them.
"New York... is always going to hell...Somehow, it never quite gets
there..." -R.P., "Lila"
----Raine
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Fri Sep 19 2003 - 10:41:46 BST