Matt:
> ...In the MD, this causes a curious event
> in which people are engaged in a conversation of
> exploration, but seem forced to add (implicitly and
> invisibly or explicitly as salutation or closing)
> the addenda 'but that's just my opinion'...
SA: Matt, I'm not one to add "that's just my
opinion", but I can see why somebody would. For
somebody adds a suggestion, and you say, "of course
these are our opinions", and yes they are, but a
degree of tolerance can be also valued in the IMO or
IMHO approach, which denotes democracy and the value
of individuals living together, disagreeing, but
picking fruit at the fruit stand together without
fighting. Nobody saying your fighting, but your
defining of IMO didn't cover this point. And as to
why somebody would put this in, well, as you further
respond as follows:
Matt:
> ...My confession is that one of my pet peeves
> are, what I see as, blithe suggestions that my life
> is missing something...
SA: Well, maybe your not "missing something", and say
so, and then move on, correct? Why the "pet peeve"?
It was a suggestion, and you know yourself better than
others, so, don't accept the opinion and move on. You
don't like suggestions, correct? Then how else do
people talk to you without you suggesting your own
opinion of what they suggested - your "pet peeve"
seems circular.
Matt:
> ...But such things
> do need confrontation.
SA: Ah, but your like to confront and debate, which
is good. So, maybe that's why tolerance wasn't on
your list of opinion definers. This isn't to say that
your not tolerant. You are VERY tolerant, but on a
philosophical ground you are cautious, which is very
good - if we each were not cautious we would be taking
everybody elses suggestions and opinions and NOT
listening to our own.
Matt:
> "discover it firsthand."
SA: This means, if you haven't meditated, then you
can't say one or the other way about meditation with
pragmatic insight. I wouldn't starve myself and fast
constantly, for I find it to be not my 'thing', but
Jains do it and find it to be THE spiritual way of
their way. So, I can have my opinion of Jainism, but
it would be improper to conclude the down and dirty of
Jainism without trying it out first. But I won't try
out Jainism, so, I'll tolerate it.
Matt:
> At the root of my distaste is this: what is
> secondhand about my experience of life if I never
> meditate? Are not all experiences direct? My
> experience of a book, for instance?
SA: We've been down this path before, but you didn't
respond back to me, even though you stated you would,
maybe our time has come? As you would properly notice
yourself, don't lose out on definitions. A secondhand
experience of a sitting-down-closed-eye meditation
would be reading a book about this kind of meditation.
Sure it is a firsthand experience, and sure it is a
direct experience, but one through a book.
Matt:
> This last rhetorical question seems to follow from
> the direct/indirect deployment--but then it runs
> afoul of Pirsig's Phaedrusian injuction: every
> person has a keen enough grasp of reality
> themselves.
SA: Sure does, and thus, why tolerance helps, for we
each experience quality in different ways. Wasn't
Marsha suggesting an activity, just as somebody
suggests a book to read? You read the book or you
don't or maybe you lurk with the book continually
coming towards the book but not yet reaching the book,
etc...
Matt:
> Wasn't the idea behind Pirsig's Quality that it is
> value, i.e. judgments, all the way down to the very
> core of reality?
SA: Sure, and you made one.
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Special deal for Yahoo! users & friends - No Cost. Get a month of Blockbuster
Total Access now
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text3.com
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
