LS Very slow reading

From: Andreas Deppner (atomic-s@muenster.de)
Date: Wed May 17 2000 - 12:39:50 BST


Jonathan, Lee, Rick, Keith, David, Diana, Horse, Miv et al,

Hopefully we do not split again. Like one part of the slow reading group
sticking absolutely to the text (me including) and the other group binding
the text into an alreay woven net suspended in an preset philosophical
postion each member holds.

Both ways are valuable and interesting.

Some personal reasons why I like to stick to the text which correlates ( at
least as I understand it) to the 'slow reading' idea.

http://www.freelance-academy.org/slowread.htm

1.) I know nearly nothing about philosophy. There is just a little bit of
reading Bertrand Russell, whom I admire especially for his ability to
explain complicated thoughts in an comprehensible way, and of course Pirsig,
although I never understood ZAMM fully, neither ' Lila '. But what I
understood is GREAT stuff.
When I found the MOQ on the internet I was as excited as the day ' Lila '
came out. And You guys gave me a lot of helpful insights. More than once I
said: " This is f****ing great ." But it is extremely difficult to find an
starting point from where You can head on. I can not and I do not want to
read an 15 pages essay about solipsism to find out which position held is
right. Often it goes like - " Well, this is an interesting question !" - But
to get an deep answer You have to cut down Your socializing heavily or read
about philosopy at work (which I do - being independent). I tried to move
along the LS discussion in may but I am still ten or so messages behind.

In my personal social context people do not see me as stupid or dumb. The
MOQ is a highly valuable place but the bridge for an everyday person is IMO
long and narrow. Only a few manage - and I suppose nearly all of these
people base on a solid philosophical background.

I do not want to water the MOQ essence but I believe we need a rethinking
about the structure of this platform. For me this place is a jungle and I
wonder if there shouldn't be a cozy little playground open for newcomers and
relaxing for the knightly pursuers of DQ.

2.) Mr. Pirsig mentions in Lila that one must make up his own mind up on
something before comparing his own views/ideas with others. This is
essential. And as I said there is no place in the MOQ for unexperienced
newbies to develop this ability (What I do right know is 'following' the
person whose ideas I find the most interesting and comprehensible). But You
probably do not want this anyway. The price is to endanger contact to the
everyday people interested in philosophy.But when Dan Glover tries to
structurize the essence of the MOQ or Rich Petty summarizes the content of
the discussion of Chap. 1-3, not to speak of David who started the
avalanche, I see that there is already an element of development which leads
to more transparency and an easier understanding.

3.) We all like to talk. Otherwise we wouldn't be here. But our love must
direct to tender the realm where we dwell.Not to pursue the fullfillment of
personal needs. Why not starting by taking care of the sentence in the left
upper corner of Mr. P's building. Tkink about the speed and IMO most of the
time nearly all of the people are way to fast. Let's slow down. With the
target on easy comprehension.

4.) In 'Lila' Mr. Pirsig speaks about the bastard slips, concluding that one
can measure the quality of a system by asking how it deals with the
bastards. Bastards are mostly young, naive, not knowing, but asking. If I
dislike someone's opinion it is important to deal with it in a way I'd like
other to deal with me (But it is probably not necessary to put any emphasis
on this. In the discussion I could follow so far always some new insights
came into being and there is not only Rich who says, " I may be wrong .")

Any newcomers reading this ? - If so, what do You think ?

But now back to the beef:

I found a friend of mine, Wiltrud. Asking her what she thinks about this
first sentence she gave me this:

lila war sich nicht bewusst dass sie nicht allein war.
lila wusste nicht, dass jemand wusste dass es sie gibt
und dass dieser jemand gerade bei ihr war
(das weiss ich aber auch nur weil ich schon die 1. seite gelesen hab )
mich irritieren die zeitlichen und örtlichen ebenen in diesem satz:
wo war er wann gewesen?
es kann auch heissen,
lila wusste nicht dass es ihn gibt
oder
lila wusste zwar dass es ihn gibt aber nicht wo er war.

My translation:

Lila was not aware of the fact, that she was not alone.
Lila did not know, somebody knew that she is existent and that this
Somebody was present.
(I know this because I have already read the first page)
I am irritated by the temporal and local levels in this sentence:
Where was he when ?
It also can mean,
Lila did not know that he existed
Or
Lila knew of his existence but not where he was.

Thank You,

Andreas

MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:33 GMT