Hi, Mary, Squad --
It sounds like you had a good go at it -- nice work! Even if you
didn't say everything in the best way, the message is important
and needs to get out there. I don't know if public speaking is
your thing or not (it definitely isn't mine), but if it is then
further practice, along with the helpful input from the Squad,
will lead to better presentations and more receptive audiences.
The best way to learn is to try, repeatedly.
A couple of quick comments . . .
>But the Major (with a capital M) question almost everyone had was
>- WHAT IS DYNAMIC QUALITY? This was asked (and answered) in a number of
>different ways a number of different times throughout the session.
>Defining it as the pre-intellectual cutting edge of experience floated
>like a lead balloon. People wanted a more solid answer than that. The
>answer that seemed to work best was equating it with the force for Good
>in the Universe. People seemed able to grasp that right away - plus
>this definition supported the evolution of the static levels (the
>latches) very clearly. I also described DQ as being akin to Zen Mind
>(Bodvar forgive me!) and/or God - though I couldn't put much conviction
>in my voice when I said it - what a sellout. I deserve deserve
>electronic wet noodle lashings, but this did put a lot of heads to
>nodding in the affirmative.
I'd be a little wary of using the phrase "Zen mind"; it can come off as
glib New Age jargon, particularly if you've never cultivated it through
Zen practice yourself. We all can comprehend the equivalence between
Zen mind and DQ intellectually, but how many of us have really been there
for more than a brief flash? It doesn't have the ring of truth to use it
in a presentation this way. But OTOH, even though it could be seen as
trendy New Age jargon, if people relate to it, that's the main thing.
I'd try to stick more to concrete examples that the audience will
relate to -- trendy terms like "the Zone" could be useful as an intro,
but get right into specific things that your audience will understand,
preferably that they will have experienced themselves. This is where
knowledge of your audience is essential. Once you have them on your
wavelength, then you can get more general.
[Listen to me -- the public speaking expert! ;^)]
>Since no one had read either of the books, I stressed that "Lila" was
>the most important of the 2 to read.
>From the standpoint of development of the MoQ, you're right, of course.
But for me, ZMM was crucial in that it prepared me to accept the ideas
in Lila. My experience of reading ZMM was moving enough that when Lila
came out, RMP had me in his back pocket right from the start.
Understanding the changes he went through in order to get to the point
where he could conceive of the MoQ in the first place made it much
easier for me to grasp the concept.
I guess this line of discussion would get into which, if either, of
the two works most people find most "interesting", or easier to relate
to, as opposed to which is more "important". [Do we choose books to
read on the basis of their "importance"?] Judging by their relative
sales figures, ZMM would seem to be the one. But I think they're both
interesting, and both important, for different reasons.
So I would have trouble recommending less than the full package --
although I do appreciate how it would go over to tell folks they need
to read not 1, but 2 books.
>Since no one had read either of the books, I stressed that "Lila" was
>the most important of the 2 to read. Pirsig should start to see a
>slight rise in sales in the Dallas area next week ;)
That would be a worthy measure of your success, I agree. Please let us
know if you hear anything in this regard.
Jeff Travis
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:39 GMT