On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 4:54 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > John Carl: > > I would merely point out to the guy that he considers his ideas are right > and therefore have quality. He will also have to admit his work has > quality.
He is very sure of this himself and needs little confirmation. Think back to the original Rigel. If the captain had stroked his ego in this way, would it have served the pursuit of Quality or the elimination of Samsara to tell Rigel that all his moralistic conceptions and lifework were worthy? Would that have helped him see the need for overcoming his own somist tendency? He was pretty sure of his own values already. My sheetrocking ex-lawyer does believe in Quality. He believes in it as something which doesn't need explanation. He believes in it as something which he possesses in his own hip pocket and is ready to flick it at the inferior species of not-graduates around him. Admittedly understandable, but a trap in its own way. > As for a koan, how about, "Life is a series of value choices > between the no choices of birth and death." Or, "It's impossible to live > without having assumptions about what is good." > Its an impossible task. Koans work when they are vested in some authority which gives them enough heft to be taken seriously. I could ask my local bar friends about the sound of a tree falling the in forest when nobody was around to hear it, and I guarantee you this, nobody would take my question seriously enough to gain any enlightenment from the question. Context within a teaching is everything. That's why Pirsig had to create all that novel. Just to get enough emotional commitment in the story, to get the point of the koan across. Otherwise all is lost in the great trivial wash of the modern blare. Lately, the dialogue has been less emotional and rancorous. After the initial challenge of his worldview, he seems more comfortable with my thinking. Where we are really hung up is on the general area of "does a dog have a buddha nature". Only we are taking this at his pace and from his world view - which is biblical. Where I've challenged him is in the idea that "nature is fallen". The christian doctrine of original sin. I say this concept is unbiblical and patently false. "Sin" can only occur in the intellect - the flesh is just the flesh. He tells me that he can prove I'm wrong from the bible. I don't think he can so we're waiting for monday. :) J Carl > > Platt > > > On 27 Jun 2009 at 9:51, John Carl wrote: > > > So lately I've been helping a neighbor/friend with a little sheetrocking > in > > the morning. He needs a hand hanging the lid. > > > > > > He's an interesting guy. A retired attorney of around my age (50ish) who > > has been living here on the Ridge for about 10 years. A relative > newcomer > > to most of the folks around here, but a hard charging kind of guy who is > > real involved as a community leader - on the county planning commission, > > hosted politcal klatsches for a supervisor candidate (who won) and his > wife > > is the head of the school board where his and my son attend. We carpool > a > > lot, through the yuba canyon. > > > > > > So we had them for dinner a month or so back, I'd told him about ZAMM, he > > likes to discuss ideas and so he took it, read it, and I asked him about > it > > first day at work. > > > > > > He didn't like it. Said it was full of crap he'd heard before. So I > asked, > > "You actually read the whole thing?" He didn't really answer me then but > > instead launched into a tirade about the reality of gravity. So I > figure > > he must have gotten stuck at that point, but the fact that he couldn't > just > > admit that he rejected a book that he hadn't had the gumption to finish > was > > kinda weird and as later clues came together I understood that there is > this > > attorney-training thing happening in argumentation that is all about the > > win, baby. They never concede a point and if any niggling > misconstruation > > is possible, they vehemently deny and oppress any point you're making as > > well. > > > > > > It can be a disconcerting style to deal with, to say the least. > > > > > > Other similarities between my friend and Rigel, besides the community > leader > > and being attorneys, was the stiff morality. For those who observe a > strict > > victorian morality there seems to be an intensely emotional attachment to > > "what they believe". In the middle of a rational discussion, he'd have > to > > stop and beg me to stop what we are doing (working on his project) so > that > > he could vehemently make his points. Usually points about free markets, > > immorality of socialism, immorality of modernism and so forth. He's a > > religious man, but has doubts about the bible. He didn't want to discuss > > religion, but used the philosophy gained from a lifetime exposure (his > folks > > were missionaries) to religion and the bible to justify "his" world > view. > > When I pointed out that the self was an intellectual construct, he went > > ballistic on me, but then later contradicted himself and conceded that > > point, sort of. > > > > > > Afterwards, I thought about the captain's encounter with Rigel and > compared > > our two experiences. I too felt helpless in the face of SOMish > certainty. > > One difference is that that the Captain headed on down the river and out > of > > Rigel's orbit forever. I went back to work the next morning and morn > after > > that and all next week and I'll be carpooling and neighbors forever. I > have > > some potential in the continuity of the relationship to get through to > this > > guy. But how? > > > > > > How does a budding bodhisattva construct a koan for a Rigelian > sheetrocker? > > I must admit, he's the best sheetrock cutter I've ever worked with. The > > house we're working on has many complicated angles and light fixtures. > He > > takes great pride in getting every single joint and cuttout exact. > Unlike > > the normal sheetrocker who cuts around outlets a little large, he cuts > them > > out a little small so that he can fine tune with his keyhole saw on > > installation. He admits he is working to impress the tapers. But of > course > > who he's really working for is to impress himself. I've known a lot of > > tapers and they're not usually the kind of guys who's approval would > raise > > anyone's status. Still, there is a craft involved in getting all the > lines > > perfect. I don't call it art, but its something. > > > > > > Transferring the MoQ. That is the issue, eh? How? And maybe, why? Is > it > > my own egoistic desire to "convert" that is at the heart of my concern? > Am > > I trying to impress the kind of guy who's approval would raise my status? > > Or am I striving to liberate a sentient being from samsara and lead them > to > > enlightenment? > > > > > > If I choose, I choose the latter. But now we are back to the how. How > to > > construct a koan. How to lead out in a dialogue. How to deal with > > self-satisfied SOM. An ongoing challenge. > > > > -- > > ------------ > > Doing Good IS Being > > ------------ > > 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/ > -- ------------ Doing Good IS Being ------------ 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/
