> Dan:
> Actually I seemed to have opened it further! Sometimes we just have to
> muddle around awhile before we find our own level. If my writings inspire
> your own in some small way then I feel they are worthwhile.
Avid:
I try to make it my approach, to treat a matter as "unclearified yet", or as
a question I can answer. It is constructive.
DAN:
Fair enough.
Dan:
Whether you
> agree with me or I with you is really secondary and inconsequential
anyway.
Avid:
What is important are the why's, what makes you still hold your ideas and
vice versa.
DAN:
Perhaps...
Dan:
> On asking you to change... that's something I guess we all must do in
> approaching Pirsig's MOQ.
Avid:
IMO to be asked to change is too much, high quality change comes from
within. But it is true you must expect changes approaching a new
metaphysics. On the other hand we like to cling to our old ideas. So we try
to reconciliate the old with the new. Here the why I still hang on to an
idea is immensely important. It is either I found a way to interpret the new
in a way that the particular old fits, or I carry with me a mistake in
concepts. Which is which is my reason for having this forum.
DAN:
We are always changing. Whether I, or anyone else, asks you to change is
moot. Change arises of its own.
[OLD] Avid:
>
> An old mystic [Ishaayahu] once told us that the Messiah would be
unpalatable
> too, what to do, quality of the new is never easy, it requires listening
to
> what you don't consider important, there lies new quality. You don't have
to
> like me but to judge my writing as arrogant and expect me to change to fit
> into your communication scheme, is pretty arrogant too [to say the least].
>
> Dan:
>
> And an old mystic [madman] once told me, when in Rome, do as the Romans.
Avid:
How does this go with looking for high quality?
Dan:
If we are all here in this discussion forum looking for Quality, then it
seems implicit that it is you, me, everyone, who must adhere to moq_discuss
'style', which includes language and proper terminology. Anything less will
only lead to miscommunication. It is not up to moq_discuss to change suiting
your needs any more than it should change to suit mine. Examples of your
attempted change is your frequent use of SPQ (static pattern of quality)
which seems inconsistent with Pirsig's pattern of value terminology put
forth in Lila. This is confusing at best. You are certainly free to express
yourself any way you desire and again, this may be indicative of our
language differences. But if we all come up with our pet names for Pirsigian
philosophy, how will we ever be able to communicate unambiguously with each
other?! Where is high Quality in that?
> Dan:
> "For the [stupid] reason" is your quote. My reason is not separate from me
> as you may be inclined to believe, but all part of me. If my reason is
> stupid, I am stupid. (I thought I would grow wiser as I got older but I
just
> got older.)
Avid:
This is what I meant by the SOM cage. You have to ATTRIBUTE a quality to a
subject or object [In the stove situation you curse is a reaction toward the
situation, quality comes first, subjects objects latter.
SOM makes us identify with our ideas "My reason is not separate from me" is
typical sentence of SOM. This is why we need at least to identify where SOM
is low quality, we have an alternative.
DAN:
There is no separation here. We are what we pretend to be. Very difficult to
see and even more difficult to explain. I can see how confusion can result.
Dan:
Furthermore, earlier in your email you seemed to insinuate fault
> on my part understanding what you seem to deem as your obviously superior
> intellect:
>
> "What I take from your remark Dan is that my explanation was too complex,
so
> if it is interesting to you [because of the subject or because you don't
> like too complicated for your understanding to exist] I suggest you break
it
> down to questions that will simplify the digestion of the data contained
[as
> you do with food]."
Avid:
All I took is a biological SPQ [static pattern of quality] and applied it
here on the cultural level. The idea is that recognizing food as too
complex requires more chewing and breaking [into smaller digestible pieces].
You suggested to put the issue to rest because it was too complicated, as
far as I remember [ > Dan:
> I agree. If MOQ cannot be explained to small children then that
explanation
> is too complex. Very intriguing intellectually, however. Thank you for
> sharing it with us, Avid] .
This sounded to me as you suggesting me to get
off the subject, because its too complicated. The digestion example is a
suggestion to go about it nothing more.
DAN:
Actually I love intellectualizing and therefore must be constantly on guard
against such action on my part. I have been accused often of complicating
issues needlessly. Rather than seeing my comments as my attempt at shutting
you up, please see them as attempts on my part to remind you we must all
attempt to keep it simple.
Dan:
> Now it may be something is coming through in your translation to English
> that you do not mean to come through as such, but this seems less than
> graceful, as you put it so aptly. But like I said, there's not much to be
> said about art so we may as well bicker and get to know each other better,
> what do you think? :)
Avid:
I like to know each and every one of the forum better, but I still think Art
holds a valuable key to translate felt quality [as roger put it QE - quality
experience] into SPQ of all levels.
Dan:
Perhaps.
and don't forget to be gentle
Avid
icq 6598359
And you either!
Shalom
Dan
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:11 BST