Hello everyone On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:31 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > dmb said: > Given that this is supposed to be a place to discuss metaphysics, to debate > philosophical issues, all this other stuff seems like a distraction. To be > honest, I don't really care if that makes me seem unfriendly. The only that > matters to me here, is WHAT you say, not how you say it or what a nice guy > you are. For all I know, you could be posting from a psych hospital, a prison > or a circus. > > Dan: > > I thought this discussion group was centered around Robert Pirsig's books, > LILA and ZMM. Sure, there's philosophy there. But there's a lot more besides. > There's a story. To neglect the story is to miss half the point. > > dmb says: > > I agree. The narrative aspect of Pirsig's books certainly wouldn't count as a > distraction. The relevance of each contribution is open to debate of course, > but distracting "stuff" I had in mind was, for example, the story about > domestic disputes while almost getting lost on the highway. The other problem > is focusing too much on style of the posts or the personality of the poster > rather than the content of the post. Basically, my complaint is about > irrelevance, which is not a word I'd apply to any part of Pirsig's books.
Dan: Yes it's (sometimes) difficult to separate original Dynamic contributions from the garbage. I thought Lu's story was a personal insight into what RMP terms the Cleveland Harbor Effect even though she didn't mention it. Also there were some interpersonal relationships going on that are absent in RMP's story that I found interesting. I know many of my stories could be construed as irrelevant. I tend to treat the reader as if they have a mind of their own. For instance, what does a misspelled sign have to do with the MOQ? If I have to tell you, then why write a story in the first place? In ZMM the narrator says that metaphysics isn't any good unless it contributes to making everyday life better, right? > > Dan also said: > > In fact, over the years as I gone along my merry way I've come to see the > story as the important part of the equation. A writer can build metaphysical > and philosophical underpinnings into a story on many levels. Whether a reader > is capable of understanding the depths of those levels is problematical > though. > > > dmb says: > > I agree. It would be nice if we had a few novelists, literary critics, or > even just a few english majors. Dan: Well, perhaps. I'd at least vote for a few english majors. I think we have enough critics. Oh, but they're not very literary. Sorry. Anyway... this quote comes to mind: "She was strangely unaware that she could look and see freshly for herself..." (ZMM) This is a key quote when it comes to understanding and separating (what I would term) a Dynamically constructed piece of writing from the static-bound. Imitation kills creativity. I don't want to hear what all the other countless philosophers think. I want to hear what you as the writer thinks. As an example, John's fixation with Royce... it may well be a Dynamic insight that James and Royce were best buddies. I did not know that. But don't shove Royce quotes down my throat day after day. Talk about dry and irrelevant. Make it interesting. Build a case. Don't put me to sleep. dmb: The section in ZAMM where Chris and is "father" are climbing a mountain together always comes to mind here because the parallels between the hiking and the philosophizing are so striking. Just before they would have reached the top the narrator gets spooked by the sounds of small landslides and decides to turn back and head down toward the valley again. Philosophically, he does the same thing. Coward! No wonder Chris wants his real dad back. Dan: I took from certain parts of that section that philosophy can be a lot like the difference between being told to do something and just doing it. In the instance of Chris and the narrator climbing a mountain, the narrator's been there. He knows what to do to survive. So he automatically takes charge. But Chris doesn't want to be told what to do. And if left to his own devices, he'd learn by just doing. But the narrator-teacher's not having any of that. To him, it's a bad sign that Chris won't do what he's told. He's shirking work. Not good in the mountains. Not good in the classroom. There's a clear correlation between not judging Chris on his actions and not grading students in the classroom. Very interesting section, Dave. Thanks for pointing it out. > > > > Dan said: > > Consider for a moment that "all this other stuff" might just be > inconsequential Dynamic Quality. It is like that. It flutters around the > edges, a moth distracting from the beguiling light of knowledge being thrown > into the world by real discussions centering on philosophy. > > > > dmb says: > > Not sure what you mean here but it's clear you've raised the issue of how and > where DQ is likely to play a role in a situation like this one. For those > who've read his books, the most obvious illustration would be motorcycle > maintenance. (I'm trying to win a place on the cover of next month's edition > of "Obvious Magazine". They're doing a small piece about my academic article > in the spring edition of the journal "Duh!".) > > There is quite a lot packed into that analogy but I'm thinking in particular > about the demands of the bike. There are thousands of precise parts to it and > they all have to work in harmony smoothly if you want to take her down the > road. Getting to know the bike means prolonged and careful engagement, means > gaining enough experience to get a feel for the materials and the tools and > bringing that to bear in an active, intelligent engagement with those > precision parts as a whole system of relations. In this case, the bike is an > analogy for the MOQ as a metaphysical system. In both cases, I think DQ comes > out of that kind of focus, that kind of caring. Thus my complaints about > distractions. In this analogy, irrelevance is one of the gumption traps. You > know, you're trying to weld a chain guard and he's trying to hand you an ice > cream cone. Dan: Mmmm... ice cream. I'd go ahead and put my brazing (gotta braze sheet metal... never got the feel for welding the thin stuff) rod down for that. Seriously though, I see what you're saying. I guess what bothers me most is posters who insist on changing the MOQ to suit their own ideas. And it's clear reading their words that they've spent little to no time actually reading RMP's work. I don't know where to begin so though I might once in a while burst forth I generally ignore those posts. Then there are those contributors who really should know better. All the arguements concerning a definition of the intellectual level come to mind. To me, even though the posts are supposedly about the MOQ, every single one is totally irrelevant. Like I told Mati, we all know what intellect means. Yet it goes on and on and on. Christ. I could just scream. Something new and original is so rare! Like you say, a person has to be steeped in prolonged and careful engagement. But there's more to it than that. Otherwise they'd just be regurgitating the same old stuff. The passage on Poincaré mentions the 'subliminal self' as preintellectual awareness. The Dynamic Quality of LILA. You could say it takes all that stale junk we learn and turns it into golden moments. And we never know when or where they'll turn up. Most likely it'll be unlooked for and a surprise. Well-written posts are constructed similarly to well-written stories. RMP lists some of the qualities of good writing in ZMM. These are static qualities that anyone can follow to improve their writing. But sometimes I come across well-constructed posts that tell me nothing. It's all static. There's a Dynamic aspect that's missing and it's hard to put a finger on just what it is. Originality? No. It's more than that. It's like the writer is trying too hard and it shows. dmb: > It's probably a fitting time to mention the importance of being stuck. The > other day I stumbled on some brain research that lends support to Pirsig's > ideas in this area. (Baston, Schoenrade and Ventis. 1993) They compare > religious experience to creative problem solving. Apparently, in both cases > people get stuck. In both cases, the person faces a problem that cannot be > solved from within their present conceptual structure. The left hemisphere, > with all it's discrete concepts, definitions and understandings, just doesn't > have what it takes to see any solution. This is a painful situation but it is > a crucial to the growth process. Anyway, these researchers think that what > happens in such a crisis is the brain switches from left to right hemisphere > dominance so that the person gets a non-verbal insight that is beyond the > persons conceptual structures. Even more astonishing, this insight can not > only solve the problem at hand it can also alter and expand the person's > whole concep > tual structure. Dan: That's interesting. When stuck, I sit quietly. As the mind grows silent the right eye goes dim even though the eyelid is open. I suspect this is indicative of the left side of the brain ceasing it's incessant chatter. And you're right. The insights that arise alter the whole universe. >dmb: > I think that's one of the ways we can take the idea that the real bike you're > working on is yourself. Dan: Yes. We should all care more. Thank you, Dan 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/md/archives.html
